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

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


No its not that. Missile defence is bad if it undermines MAD. The minute a country decides it can win a nuclear war the risk of one occurring grows enormously. However, the amount of actual capability being fielded is inconsequential in comparison to Russia and they are over-reacting.




posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


IMHO anything that underminds MAD is a good thing, Russian, US, Chinese, Martian or whatever.

You are suggesting the US would start lobbing missiles if we had enough interceptor defense, that's only your distorted opinion. No one is stopping Russia from building their own interceptor batteries, in fact, I would support every country of the world deploying a mass of interceptors.

Having a bunch of interceptors > The end of humanity.
edit on 21-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
you guys and my self can argue about WW3 and we can have a good time doing it. Keep something in mind. Seeing a a mile of flat cars carrying tanks is nothing. When you see train loads of Patriot Missile Launchers
on a mile of flat cars then worry. Ever sit on a pat site and watch these things hunt..Oh so aminous



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by justwokeup
 


IMHO anything that underminds MAD is a good thing, Russian, US, Chinese, Martian or whatever.

You are suggesting the US would start lobbing missiles if we had enough interceptor defense, that's only your distorted opinion. No one is stopping Russia from building their own interceptor batteries, in fact, I would support every country of the world deploying a mass of interceptors.

Having a bunch of interceptors > The end of humanity.
edit on 21-1-2012 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

The countries that haven't invested in survivability and count on interception of of Launch will loose the battle.
Russia and China have invested heavily on Survivability something USA has only scoffed as 2012 hideout lore



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 


What about the next generation of more effective, more agile, more destructive nuclear weapons that would surely follow. Do you fully support those too?

If BMD is allowed to grow into more than very limited defence against rogue states then it would spark a new nuclear arms race. Thats good for Raytheon and Lockheed. I'm not sure who else its good for.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Krono
Yes and russia has 1000s out of missiles trained on the rest of the world, you dont see us complaining do you?

2nd

Wrong. Under NEW START they are allowed 800 launchers. So you fail.



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solomons
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,

Well they are looking not for NOW but for the future. Let's be real here, the missile shield was able to hit Minutemans back in the 80s. What do you think the technology is right now? And even if it's half as good as they claim, in the future, the technology is gonna get better and that is what Russia is afraid.


it is wholly inadequate and could quite easily be overwhelmed by Russia.

Right now yes. But what about in 5 years with several thousands interceptors of higher accuracy and if NATO launches a first strike? They have to think about that in their war plans.

Nobody here is against the missile shield. What we are against is a missile shield that destroys MAD and put us closer to a nuclear war because of that.
edit on 21-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by RSF77
 



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.

Wrong again. All of us are for missile defense, own by anyone, but we are opposed to it IF it destroys MAD since it puts us closer to WW3, something which nobody wants.

The US can have their missile shield, Europe too, but it must be aimed at small nuclear actors like Iran/North Korea/Pakistan... which would mean interceptors would be in South Korea, Iraq/Turkey/Afghanistan or in the US...there it wouldn't upset MAD... you don't put interceptors in freaking eastern Europe.

i]reply to post by justwokeup
 



The russians are paranoid.

You would be too if your country was nearly wiped off the map in WW2 because you believed your potential enemy.


Let's be real here, the missile shield was put in eastern Europe by Bush/Robert Gates/Richard Pearl/Cheney/Rumsfeld... all of them are neo-cons who were hawkish haters of the Soviet Union. When Reagan wanted to disarm and reduce the number of nuclear weapons, all of these scum (Gates/Pearl) were opposed. These are warmongering scum who should have never been close to power.
edit on 21-1-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 05:46 AM
link   
The early attempts at missile shild and technology like that were
disguarded because of the existance and advancement of multiple
warhead carring ICBM's thats the scarry senario of the whole thing
multiple warheads raining down if a single missile gets through the
sheild. no good outcome comes from any country having them
but nobody will give them up. and if they say they will then you
can garentee they are full of it. cold war Mark 2 but this time
it's the russians and chines on the ascendancy.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

Originally posted by Krono
Yes and russia has 1000s out of missiles trained on the rest of the world, you dont see us complaining do you?

2nd

Wrong. Under NEW START they are allowed 800 launchers. So you fail.


Oh come of it, do you really believe russia and the west will abide by the treaty? I don't.

The treaty was probaly made just to ease tensions. All it takes is one missile then that treaty was for nothing. Major powers will never get rid of nukes or whatever the treaty was supposed to say, unless aliens came to earth and told us to or we'll be destroyed.. But that won't happen in our lifetime.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by RSF77
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.


You call this "bias" against the US? Excuse us for not promoting nuclear war.

ABM systems are part of the first strike strategy. It's a fact. I've stated it many times before and it's not exactly hard to understand why: you deploy ABM systems to shoot down the retaliatory strike after you strike first.

There is a reason why ABM systems were limited under the ABM treaty, and were thus deployed in a purely defensive nature (One around Moscow, one around ICBM launch sites in the US). And there's a reason as to why the US dropped out of the ABM Treaty: so they can deploy ABM systems all around Russia's flanks.

It's not exactly defensive when the US is deploying them right on Russia's border, a thousand of them at that. Thanks Christ the Russians have nuclear subs and mobile launchers so the Americans would not feel completely secure enough in their arrogance to strike first.



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
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.


Ah no, thats not really what happened, they didn't place faith in the treaty, just thought it would give them enough time for both the axis and allies to exhaust themselves and Russia could take advantage. Russia is as much a warmongering nation as the west



posted on Jan, 22 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
weather or not their is a missile sheild the shere volume of those,
weapons form the US, Russia, china, UK, India, Packistan, france
israle and and possibly iran means if we start lobbing them back and
forth we will be all screwed.
slightly off topic, but brought up earlier russia was months if not weeks away
form starting its own push into german occupied teritories, the newly constructed
air field in poland were far too close to the boader to simply be defencive,
they were their to give their fighters maximum range over german held territory,
the pact between the germans and the russians would have been broken anyway,
either way the most interesting part was that part of germanies motivation was to
gain access to resouces and treasuries as they were on the verge of insolvency.....
the crazy lenghts countries will go to trying to aviod insolvancy.
sorry off topic.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by MortlitantiFMMJ
Russia is as much a warmongering nation as the west


When was the last time Russia invaded another country in an offensive manner?

When was the last time Russia placed "defensive" missile systems on the borders of its rivals, specifically the US?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Georgia 2008, with that South ossettia stuff. before that wasn't it Chechnya twice in the 1990’s causing over 100,000 casualties. realative small scail in comparison but you did pose a question. but back in the soviet days
it wasn't an uncomman thing for them to do.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Seriously I fail to understand what's so bad about interceptors... They defend a country from missile attack.

Dont attack other countries with missiles and your missiles wont get intercepted...

PLUS the fact that Russia has like the best anti-interceptor Missiles that aim to get past those damn interceptors, in the world mind you, and you wonder what the complaint is about?

Not concerned about Russia having interceptor missiles aimed at them. More concerned about NATO having ICBM missiles aimed at them that they need 1,000 interceptor missiles to begin with.
edit on 23-1-2012 by DaRAGE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by wondera
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Georgia 2008, with that South ossettia stuff. before that wasn't it Chechnya twice in the 1990’s causing over 100,000 casualties. realative small scail in comparison but you did pose a question. but back in the soviet days
it wasn't an uncomman thing for them to do.


Russia invaded Georgia in order to protect ethnic Russians that the Georgians were murdering, including both civilians and Russian peacekeepers. It was not some unprovoked attack.

Chechnya is within Russia. Chechnya is not a sovereign country. And it wasn't exactly unprovoked either.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by wondera
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Georgia 2008, with that South ossettia stuff. before that wasn't it Chechnya twice in the 1990’s causing over 100,000 casualties. realative small scail in comparison but you did pose a question. but back in the soviet days
it wasn't an uncomman thing for them to do.


Russia invaded Georgia in order to protect ethnic Russians that the Georgians were murdering, including both civilians and Russian peacekeepers. It was not some unprovoked attack.

Chechnya is within Russia. Chechnya is not a sovereign country. And it wasn't exactly unprovoked either.


What about Tajikistan? Any excuses for Afghanistan?



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by MortlitantiFMMJ

Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi

Originally posted by wondera
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Georgia 2008, with that South ossettia stuff. before that wasn't it Chechnya twice in the 1990’s causing over 100,000 casualties. realative small scail in comparison but you did pose a question. but back in the soviet days
it wasn't an uncomman thing for them to do.


Russia invaded Georgia in order to protect ethnic Russians that the Georgians were murdering, including both civilians and Russian peacekeepers. It was not some unprovoked attack.

Chechnya is within Russia. Chechnya is not a sovereign country. And it wasn't exactly unprovoked either.


What about Tajikistan? Any excuses for Afghanistan?


What about Tajikistan?

And it was the Soviet Union that occupied Afghanistan, not the modern Russian Federation. Technically, they did it to support the communist party that was under seige by US-backed mujahideen.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Russia will figure out how to thwart the interceptors, or drastically reduce their efficacy. Russia is not far behind the West in technological terms, and could even be on par, or theoretically more advanced in some regards. While they might be complaining about it, dont doubt that they will counter it in their own way.





top topics
 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum