NATO declares missile shield up and running

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Also tell me what part of US M1tanks and US drones attacking villages in Afghanistan is brave?

"Brave"? Maybe not. "Smart"? Absolutely!

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

You already have brought up the killing of Muslims. Afghans are by in large Muslim. I could say "Israelis", if that would make your feel better.

Yes, that does make me feel better.

No, I don't think it's "cowardice" to utilize the tools you have available to you. It would be the same as saying that today's auto mechanics are morons because they use computers and precision tools, rather than the tools available in a 3rd world country.

It is cowardice when you kill people who are weaker than you and have no ability to defend themselves. Ever heard of the term called bullying? We are supposed to be the USA, the moral high ground.

Just because we have better weapons does not mean we can go around killing people.

Just because I have a bigger gun does not mean I can go rob my neighbors shed.

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3


Finally we agree!@!!

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Yes, that does make me feel better.

Okay, so the Israelis were brave for defeating the larger Islamic military in 1967?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
It is cowardice when you kill people who are weaker than you and have no ability to defend themselves. Ever heard of the term called bullying? We are supposed to be the USA, the moral high ground.

Ultimately, this is a chicken/egg thing. The nation of Afghanistan allowed terror training camps, which trained the guys who flew planes into buildings, killing people who were unarmed. To me, retaliation isn't bullying. However, some people don't believe that even happened, and that it was really the plan of a guy that couldn't even formulate a proper sentence (Bush).

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Just because we have better weapons does not mean we can go around killing people.

No, but if you HAVE TO fight, why wouldn't you use everything at your disposal?

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Just because I have a bigger gun does not mean I can go rob my neighbors shed.

Again, if it comes down to it, and I'm on your front step with a sword. I'm coming in to kill you and your family. You have a gun, I have sword. Do you use the gun? Or, do you think that would be somehow unjust? Personally, if the rolls are reversed, I'm using the biggest gun I can get.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

So this must be a rare example of afghan bravery?
www.youtube.com...
1 to 1 they still suck.There are millions of people in the US only a fraction can fight,but those who can are good aggressive and capable.Doctrine may require they stay aboard vehicles but we are the same country who took on china and beat their asses back across the Yalu.You still evade questions about YOUR qualifications,must be a college boy.Not a shooter.
Check this guy's posts He's quick to call the US down.
I think the missile shield is a tripwire force.It isn't meant or capable of countering a Russian assault,just glorified ADA.
I doubt anyone in Russia wants to fight a nuclear war.Not so in the US but we sure do watch them,LeMay was a scary guy.The strategy would favor US survivability wouldn't it?Militarily aren't were the largest NATO asset?Preservation of capability would suggest this doctrine is accurate.
Russia is doing the right thing as well.They wouldn't trust us not to deploy offensive capable missiles.I see them defending their nation as we defend ours.

Also tell me what part of US M1tanks and US drones attacking villages in Afghanistan is brave?

Also tell me what part of Russian Tanks and Helicopter Gunships attaching villiages in Afghanistan is brave and then come to a thread defending Russian self interest?

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

Okay, so the Israelis were brave for defeating the larger Islamic military in 1967?

If the Arab army was stronger, then the Israelis were braver. Size of army does not equate to being stronger.

Ultimately, this is a chicken/egg thing. The nation of Afghanistan allowed terror training camps, which trained the guys who flew planes into buildings, killing people who were unarmed. To me, retaliation isn't bullying. However, some people don't believe that even happened, and that it was really the plan of a guy that couldn't even formulate a proper sentence (Bush).

If you look at AQ's 1996 statement they made war on the USA because US first made war on Iraq and Iraqi sanctions, and their unilateral support for israel, so therefore 9/11 was a retaliatory attack.

I made a thread about this topic:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by neo96


The Russians were cowards too when they attacked Afghanistan. No denying it.

Lovely. Now instead of losing my job I can look forward to being nuked. Marvellous. Can I get a refund on my tax payments as I certaintly did not ask or even get asked if my hard earnt money went into this and Lord knows what other Black Ops stuff they have not declared! Peace yes. WW3 No thanks.

I don't know why anyone would consider the Afghanistan native fighters "weak". They've never lost a war and have defeated the biggest military powers in history at one time or another (British Empire, USSR, The Mongols....)

Of course, this is fighting on their turf and I think everyone who studies history can tell you that small, cohesive groups of insurgents can put up one hell of a fight even against a foe with superior arms, supplies and technology. That is, as long as everyone is willing to allow them to fight in a way that plays to their advantages.

Everyone loves to throw the Vietnam reference around, for example. What really happened during the Tet offensive (the beginning of the end) was that the Vietcong were almost wiped out. You can fight an insurgent war and keep killing small numbers of people for a very, very long time but you cannot reach victory without engaging in force on force, take and hold territory type warfare. Politics is what ended that war.

The US was in much the same position in Afghanistan and though the ultimate result remains to be seen, even the experts are not optimistic. Despite a hard fought effort to fight the insurgent / guerrilla tactics with very effective Special Ops tactics, the politicians are losing the battle once again. The government is corrupt as hell, weak and if the US and others left today the country will return to tribal Warlords fighting against each other before the dust clears.

Though I understand why we went there and appreciate the fact that our military Men and Women have sacrificed life and limb fighting the people who would be killing American civilians in and outside the US otherwise, the wisdom of fighting wars in the Middle East may turn out to be severely lacking. These are very proud, vendetta prone cultures who have a concept of honor that will justify killing innocent Westerners for decades to follow.

A lot of people look at the Israel / Palestine conflict and find it ridiculous because they've been led to believe it's a war over sharing zip codes. In reality, the first groups to fight for an Israeli nation in Palestine were radical Jews, often from Russian who launched an ethnic war to drive the Palestinians out. The Jews formed terror cells who quickly developed the tactic of setting off a small bomb and then a second, larger one to kill the people who responded and gathered at the scene. (Sound familiar?). They also attacked farming villages full of women and children and slaughtered civilians by the thousands. They funded their groups with violent bank robberies, a tactic learned from Communist class struggle teachings back home.

This is why some Arabs / Muslims feel justified in using those same tactics and scream for the dissolution of Israel or even the extinction of the Jews. When the US came along and not only supported the new Israel but provided them weapons to kill Palestinians and Arabs with we became a legitimate target, also. Unfortunately the only solution is for at least one side to evolve beyond the focus on past wrongs and present revenge for them.

I'd really hate to see the sacrifices our troops have made wasted, a possibility due to the inability for the politicians to do what's right and the creation of more enemies, more vendettas, etc.

By the way, (just finished reading the whole thread):

The Professional's ascertation that the ADA system is offensive is correct.....from a LEGAL perspective under the ABM treaty. Which of course the US pulled out of in 2002. Russia has the A-135, which technically is LEGAL under the original treaty, but is an ABM nonetheless.

In reality we are talking about 10 -20 interceptor missiles, that are designed solely for taking out an incoming ballistic missile. It is orientated toward the SE, to attack any missile coming from, oh, say the middle east.

Further more, Russian ICBMs pointed at the US fly over the North Pole. The only effect this has on the Russian First or Second Strike capability is if they fired MRBM at Europe directly. But the Russian's could simply overwhelm the system with the number of missile's they have (or take them out with Spetznaz, prior to launch). If the Russians wanted to gripe about the system degrading their missile forces they should gripe about the Alaska site (also only about 10 missiles, possibly going as high as 30 in the future). This is closer to the polar routes the missile's would take, and could still be overwhelmed, but I don't recall (maybe I am wrong) the Russians complaning about that one.

In that perspective, while LEGALLY the system maybe considered and offensive under the treaty, TECHNICALLY it is defensive only, and oriented towards the Middle East. The Russians' know this, and their complaint is either due to long standing fear of German attack (can't blame them, even though Germany is in no position to invade Russia again) or the Russians anticipate attacking Europe for some reason. Which is strange, this isn't 1985 with the US Vth and VIIth Corp's standing toe to toe with the Soviet 8th Guards army in East Germany.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Miss Sile

 

It is different when dealing with nuclear missiles under the MAD doctrine. An ABM shield is considered offensive under it.

Oh, ok. I didn't know that. Then why all the heated testosterone in this thread? Not that I don't like it, its kind of fun observing the male species of homo sapien in heated debate. Its very interesting in this case, because I could hardly give a hill of ants about the subject but i'm fascinated with the lively, cutting banter. It has got me interested though to investigate the matter, see what i'm missing out on. I'm pretty versed in most subjects here on ats, but i'm missing the point on this one so far. Gentlemen, carry on.....
(& any ladies who are fired up about this)

Miss Sile

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

 

What?

An anti missile defense shield is by it's very nature DEFENSE that puts any would be attacker at the disadvantage.

Meh.

It also enables you to use your own nukes, which you did not before, because you feared a retaliation. It isnt that hard a concept to grasp. Until Russia gets their own defense system of course.

As has been pointed out time and time again Russia already has a missile shield of it's own. And if anything they've got a bunch more deployed.

Considering later versions of the S300 can function in the ABM role and the Russians actively staff Sam sites in their country they are much better protected than the US or her allies.

reply to post by neo96


This is how an ABMD is an offensive weapon.

Imagine that an ABMD can shoot down 10% of a all-out nuclear attack from Russia. Doesn't sound much, right?

Now imagine that you have intelligence on the enemies nuclear weapons facilities that accounts for the majority of nukes (As most cold war nations do.) Let's say in an all-out attack your nuclear first strike launched from submarines and stealth bombers could destroy 90% of the enemies weapons in one fell swoop, leaving them with limited strategic response, although the remaining 10% still is enough to take out the aggressing country.

Now the ABMD comes into play, shooting down the remaining missiles.

How is that offensive? Simple. It upset MAD. If you have even a small hope of wiping out your opponents ability to respond then it actually makes a first strike preferable. And on the reverse, if the guy who has guns pointed at you has an ABMD, it makes a first strike seem more appealing to you as if you launched all your nukes at once, their ABMD couldn't stop it.

It upsets the balance of MAD, and thus moves everyone closer to first strike thus nuclear war.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Expect Poland to be smoked by a few Topol-M's. This anti-missile shield is an act of aggression. Why you say it is aggression? Because having an anti-missile shield defends against retaliatory attack which is the whole purpose of MAD. Now that if one side has a missile shield MAD is not gonna work. I wonder what the US would say if Russia lets say planted missiles in...Oh I don't know Cuba.

and has Russia done anything about it?

Strait Flush beats a full boat every time


Russia loses


AGAIN

reply to post by rebellender


Russia did not lose, they are voicing their reasons to be concerned.

Just as we in the USA are complaining about Iran but haven't done anything yet.

If we can win afghanistan all by ourselves why did we need NATO's help? It is after all our war, not NATOs

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by rebellender

 

Russia did not lose, they are voicing their reasons to be concerned.

Just as we in the USA are complaining about Iran but haven't done anything yet.

If we can win afghanistan all by ourselves why did we need NATO's help? It is after all our war, not NATOs

The reason why NATO got involved is because they need to make sure that NOTHING happens to the US military, and vice versa with US protecting any NATO country... Its in the best interest of the pact to have each others back at all times..

reply to post by Chickensalad


Jackpot - Iran is a case in point. Long-term sanctions > poverty > internal uprising/military intervention > regime change.

reply to post by jhn7537


More like the US military does not want to be the only ones out there and can't fight its wars for itself in Afghanistan.