NATO declares missile shield up and running

page: 6
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Well it is up to them if they want to be smoked by Russia now because they are now a bigger target to them. The same can be said that Iran has a right to do what the hell they want irregardless of what USA wants as a side note.


There is your myopically flawed logic again..

Russia smokes Poland "It's Justified"

The US Smokes Iran "It's Warmongering"

pffft...




posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
Hell for all we know Russia crashed that plane full of Polish cabinet members to try to prevent the missile shield from being deployed.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by sonnny1
 


It is not one upping, it is provoking. Do you not see how much cry babies we were during the cuban missile crisis? We are pulling the same exact thing.


Sigh....

Again with the "we".

You are comparing apples to oranges, a whole different time.

If you really could compare it,Russia would ALREADY have troops at Poland's doorstep,massing.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 





Russia smokes Poland "It's Justified"


Because those offensive weapons were placed next to Russia




The US Smokes Iran "It's Warmongering"


I did not see Iranians placing missiles next to USA.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Which is what I suspect as well.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 





You are comparing apples to oranges, a whole different time.


No I am comparing missiles to missiles. The same exact thing



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem
You people still believe
america doesn't have this yet?



Then I still wonder why the US have abandoned their ABL(airborne laser).Was that just a necessary first step towards more refined and better systems? Anyways, good for NATO, let those Russians scream in the void, hope we can all enjoy the European cup now, Russians are also cordially invited/qualified



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Still missing the point that short and medium range ballistic missile interceptors are not offensive weapons dude.,

They neither have the range nor payload to do any damage that most first strike weapons are capable off.

Its like me shooting a bb gun and someone else hitting you with a sledgehammer.
edit on 21-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by sonnny1
 





You are comparing apples to oranges, a whole different time.


No I am comparing missiles to missiles. The same exact thing


Care to show me where Russia,is on Степени боевой готовности,or full combat readiness?

They were in the Cuban Missile crisis.

America was on Defcon 2.

What is America and Russia current status now??

Again,your comparing apples to oranges.........



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


huh? evidence ,please.Or else its a bunch of hot air.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Foppezao
 




We have a natural diplomat.

To hell with you Russia!

Tea?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




They neither have the range nor payload for do any damage that most first strike weapons are capable off.


They are designed to stymie a retaliatory attack and under MAD they become classified as offensive weapons because it gives the attacking side an advantage.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
The west is not and does not shake in fear it's called protection of civilians hell it is easy to say Russia shakes in fear or they would have built all the fallout shelters they have.
edit on 21-5-2012 by neo96 because: (no reason given)


Western govts regard their civilians as useless eaters and certainly have bunkers in remote areas out of the masses reach.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Blah

A retaliatory strike is using ICBM's full nuclear and since ABMS do not carry nukes there is no point in using them

damn dude.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 


Diplomacy?


Anyways 2012-13 are interesting years.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
reply to post by neo96
 


huh? evidence ,please.Or else its a bunch of hot air.


Yo where is your evidence eh?



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Blah

A retaliatory strike is using ICBM's full nuclear and since ABMS do not carry nukes there is no point in using them

damn dude.


ABM's can easily be eqipped with neutron warheads or nuclear blast warheads for intercepting RV's.Study the Sprint or Gazelle system.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 




ABMS do not carry nukes there is no point in using them


Certain ABMs do carry nukes, the ones that do not have hit-to kill technology. A retaliatory strike is All ICBMS launched and ABM tries to neutralize what it can in effect damping the effect of the retaliatory strike which therefore makes it a first strike assistance weapon



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003
 


The west never built anything to the magnitude that Russia did/has.

Second.



posted on May, 21 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Wow

Anti ballistic missiles are built for speed and maneuverability dude not payload.





top topics
 
27
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join