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.

 

Russia warns of pre-emptive strike on AMD if NATO goes ahead

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Obama was already caught promising flexibility with Russia on this issue with the hot mic incident. Im not sure this is anything more than saber rattling to cover the incident further.




posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Obama was already caught promising flexibility with Russia on this issue with the hot mic incident. Im not sure this is anything more than saber rattling to cover the incident further.


To me, and to most of the rest of the world, Obama's words mean nothing, because Obama does not honor his word. Not to you, nor to the world at large. Obama is in this for Obama, and will say anything to get people to cooperate with him and what he "wants"

I do not buy into this "more flexibility" after the election, it is either right or it is wrong, you either stand for something or against it. If it is wrong, then it will be wrong both before and after the election, and vice versa. Obama's words mean nothing, only actions. And his actions say he supports this, and we ALL know that actions speak much louder than mere words.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
Russia should put missiles in Venezuela.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt



Russia warns of pre-emptive strike on AMD if NATO goes ahead


One has to wonder why Russia would choose to make such a threat against a defensive weapon system unless... unless they are upset because they couldn't launch missiles and destroy European cities.


The purpose of that shield is to defend U.S from it, where do you think the debris of the intercepted missle would land? Europe is sitting in the middle of both. US is not concerned about european safety.

The shield is there to intercept the missle as soon as possible before coming near US territory. This would mean, if Russia would launch a missile with flight path over europe, europe would have to take the hit for the US.

So the shield is anything to europe but not a "good thing". Its in poland because US saw the tentions and poland, with no serious defense thought "why not".
edit on 3-5-2012 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
We can thank the Bush doctrine for the "right to pre-emptive strikes" for establishing that precedent....which will eventually come back to haunt us.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
We can thank the Bush doctrine for the "right to pre-emptive strikes" for establishing that precedent....which will eventually come back to haunt us.


Cosmic, your post and name made me think of something well proven in the past...........here it is........

There is something magical, metaphysical, mysterious about Russia, that big, grand, powerful armies have gone into the Russian mainland, got swallowed up and finally disappeared. Empires have come to end as a result. US should not make that suicidal mistake of marching into the abyss, never to be heard of again!
edit on 3-5-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by SGTSECRET
This is great. I'm sure soon all over U.S. news we will see Russia demonized for threatening a 'pre-emptive' strike, even though it's Americas specialty. Remember, it's only wrong when someone else is doing it, the U.S. is always right


hahaha...


when I read the bold part, I could only think of this pic...




But your totally correct....Hypocrisy has risen to such new levels in this day and age....it makes my brain hurt.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   
Frankly this is BS. This interceptor system will be about 12 or so ABM rockets if deployed (I beleive that's how many are at the Alaska launch site). They can only shoot down offensive missiles in flight, and they are orientated towards the middle east. It doesn't affect the balance of power (or corolation of forces as the Russians like to say) because the Russians have HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of short, medium, and intercontinental nuclear missiles. So if we have a 100% hit rate, we could shoot down 12 or so Red missiles, a drop in the bucket. They ought to be more scared of the B2 bomber, which could slip in and level Moscow, and the Russian PVO HQ, and they would never see it coming.

Obama even offered to share the technology and possibly have Russian officers stationed at the site.

This is Russia blustering to have something to bluster about, or to try to play "payback" for the US preemptive war in Iraq. Can't say I blame them for that, but threatening central Europe just brings back the bad old days.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
this sounds like just rhetoric from both sides of the AMD Shield

if a preemptive strike were implemented... the way to take out the AMD shield would be for saboteur teams to be assigned each site and for a well planned coordinated attack on all these sites with a massive barrage of advanced RPGs to make the launch facilities non-performing


a smart bomb attack would be too fragmented over the vastness of the AMD shield, plus the tracking of the attack bombers would bring about an Alert

the idea of sending up dummy 'decoy' missiles to deplete the AMD shield of defense missiles would be too costly...(even though slow, big, unarmed , solid-fueled missiles would 100% destroyed)
but would be technically feasible for the purpose of exhausting the shield 15 minutes before the actual first-strike missiles with nuke warheads were launched in the initial attack...
~ which amounts to: just another 'race' to debt destruction instead of superiority ~



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by SrWingCommander
 


Your facts are doctored and numbers false. Why would they have only 12 rockets when Iran has atleast a 100 long range missiles. This is not a kids play regarding missiles poked at some country's eyeballs, please do not post false information.

Btw, B2 can be detected, tracked and killed at 100 NM or around at this time. Place a line of S400 radars at the border and it will detected B2 before it even enters the territory. Even S300 can detect B2 at 20 or so miles and S300 is much cheaper and available in many numbers already. Stealth can also be detected via satellites which Russia has plenty. Not to forget the Bi-Static radars and thousands of sensors all over just to detect any intrusion.......even by a bird or golf ball flying at 200 kmph.........which they usually don't

edit on 3-5-2012 by victor7 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Jameela
 




With Russia being surrounded by bases on all sides, with a missile "defense" system in place that would prevent any type of retaliation from a country that has just been attacked, first mind you, by US/NATO, this defense system, when in place and effectively operating, is a serious threat to Russian National Security! It would effectively mean US can attack Russia without threat of any retaliation, and that threat is the only check and balance system in the world today! Without it.. One World Government here we come!


This scenario would have worked in 1992 but not in 2012; NATO is no longer a unified force. Today, it is heavily divided within by nationalist politics. Also note that the UK doesn't even have an aircraft carrier anymore. The armies of mainland Europe have been reduced and rebuilt using parts from each nation to create something resembling an army. But in practice, it would probably shake apart under any kind of real strain.

Besides all that, fighting Russia would disintegrate the EU. This wouldn't be a route to a one world government. It would be the path to global destruction. Russia knows this and is simply playing for its own share of the regional booty that is, by definition, power. By knocking down the creaking EU and what's left of NATO by way of threat, she will emerge as the dominate force in norther Europe and central Asia... much like the former USSR was.

Of course, it is terribly trendy right now to shout down anything American or democratic. Politically, the popular thing is to curse liberty and cheer socialism... which reflects well back on a formerly Marxist nation. But all the cultural pop aside, Russia is no more an angel of peace than any other nation... and if you turn your back on this bear, you will get bit.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 10:57 AM
link   


Can anyone who believes this "defense system" placed here.. will defend the US or Europe from Iranian missiles, who have the current capacity to reach as far as the red line, approximately 2,000 km?

It is more than just glaringly obvious this is not an attempt to protect Europe or the US from Iran or North Korea. Although apparently some feel like it should be there to defend against Russia, and blaming it on Iran.


edit on 3-5-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


"anything American or democratic"

America and Democratic?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! You just had me fall off my chair!



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by redoubt
 


"anything American or democratic"

America and Democratic?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! You just had me fall off my chair!


Good. Hope you enjoyed the landing.

Now then, you've had you guffaw... got anything constructive to add? Or was this jsut an 'insult the guy I disagree with' comment?



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


Truly, America is not democratic in reality. Go figure!

No time to argue.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by victor7
reply to post by redoubt
 


Truly, America is not democratic in reality. Go figure!

No time to argue.


You need to learn the difference between the words 'and' and 'or' my friend.

Have a nice day



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by redoubt
 


Everyone else is not worried about their personal defenses because they have US on their side, and so long as they are friendly to US then they do not appear to feel the need to defend themselves against any outside threat. Why waste money they do not have when the US is wasting all theirs freely and happily?

My question is this, who is protecting the world from the US?

NO ONE!

FACT: The US lies upon sovereign nations in order to take over that country.

FACT: The US wages illegal wars against sovereign nations in the name of corporate greed.

FACT: The US is coming closer everyday to global hegemony... in Asia all that is not in the pocket of the US or beholden to the US are China, Russia (though transcontinental), Iran and Syria.

take those nations out of the way and what do you have?

Thus I repeat, who will protect the world from the US and the large corporations of the world to whom the US apparently feels beholden to?

The ability for checks and balances is all countries have. Promises broken is all the world has seen, and attempts at global hegemony is what the world has experienced to date since the end of WW2.

Its almost as if the US thought Hitler had a good idea...It does not appear to be about defending US territory.
edit on 3-5-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Knowing what we know about modern missile defence, I would say that Russia is utterly justified in its concerns. For a start, by far the best method for totally negating the threat of missile attack from rogue states, is NOT projectile based, but involves high energy lasers. One can moan and complain about the cost, but cost is only relavent if your attitude is that saving lives is NOT relavent, and no nation would get away with that where missile defence is concerned (apart, of course, from Israel, who have made an entire foriegn policy out of allowing easily removed rockets to land on thier territory to excuse them of murderous attrocity).

Russia also know that laser based defence platforms are far more effective , and less costly in terms of material expenditure, and are probably wondering why the hell a missile defence shield is even being thought of at the moment, bearing in mind the more immediate ecconomic concerns around the globe. I think the overwhelming evidence is that Russia are utterly justified in thier concerns over the reasoning behind the installation of this shield.

Lets not forget that this is not a sheild, its a system which allows many missiles to be launched to defend a territory againts nuclear bombing from afar. Therefore, in essence it is just a missile base which could no doubt be repurposed to strike at ground targets. Oh there will be all sorts of talk that such things would be impossible or too complicated to be bought to bear quickly, but the Russians would be retarded to believe such a thing, because we all know theres one thing that mankind can organise really quickly when he puts his mind to it, and that is the killing of his fellow man, preferably in thier hundreds of thousands per hour.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   
The systems themselves do not concern Russia half as much as the accompanying US military presence in countries hosting them - cough containment cough. The actual utility of these systems relative to the Russian nuclear arsenal is something akin to throwing traffic spikes in front of a tank.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
So, Russia appears to be worried if any Eastern European state has the capability to defend against 70s tech missiles? so similar with the IT security field where governments just arrest any hacker instead of working to have better security!



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join