NATO declares missile shield up and running

reply to post by sonnny1


anyways for the time being ,I will put up some DIA/CIA material

The potential lifesaving effectiveness of the Soviet CD program is not a matter of unanimous agreement. However, several studies estimate casualty rates as low as two to three percent of the Soviet population in the event of nuclear war.25 Table I provides a Summary comparison of CD-related factors between the U.S. and U.S. S. R., including some apparent perceptions of U.S. and Soviet leaders concerning their CD programs.26 This divergence in emphasis and perception may have an impact on U.S. national security strategy
www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

soviets estimated 75% populace would survive , but CIA assumed in best case scenario , with 5 million-10 civilian losses

At this particular interview, Major-General Keegan produced thousands of photographs, pamphlets, and "open-source documents" on Soviet military sites and civil defense projects in proof of his assertions upon these matters. In the words of Major-General Keegan: "American strategy is premised on the principle of war avoidance, while that of the Soviet Union is premised on war winning . . . The difference is a profound one.
www.christadelphia.org...

In the interview he said quite categorically that he believes Russia has already achieved military superiority over the U.S.

He spoke of the astonishing civil defense measures which have been developed, and continue to be developed, in the Soviet Union. He stated that 25% of all Russian factory workers are in training programs preparing them for civil defense leadership roles. Major defense manufacturing facilities in Russia have been dispersed well clear of all existing major industrial areas so as to afford a large measure of protection for those industries in the event of nuclear war. Keegan alleged that he was in possession of ample evidence to show that the Russians are in the process of building up huge stocks of foods and grains, in preparation for war. He said that all the evidence points to the fact that the Russians are not merely aiming for superiority but are "preparing for war. . . ." Evidence available quite openly in Russia, contained in Soviet literature, shows that already the Soviets have constructed enough mass-shelters in key strategic industrial areas to protect More than sixty million from nuclear attack. Bunkers have been provided for the civilian population in all main cities, including several which are the size of football fields. "My collection team." said the Major-General. "have identified grain-storage bunkers the size of several football fields on the perimeter of all main cities, guarded by the military -- the most elaborate of their kind in the world. We are observing the most extensive peace-time war preparations in recorded history. . ."

www.christadelphia.org...

reply to post by sonnny1


Its your perception.And cuttingedge is a end times christian ministry ,right?

Originally posted by sonnny1

Care to share some of those "untranslated" documents,for all to see ?
Any proof to back what you say up?

The proof is overwhelming.

Nakasak, Hiroshima. There are numerous documents, that show the treatment of people and their survival rates of those who were in direct contact with the area.

Pull up your browser, and search for Chernobyl, you'll find cameras and links to "thriving life" there.

The biggest fear, currently is Fukushima ... because it is a proof of concept. It's an enormous fallout, bigger than Chernobyl ... and magically, all the people of Japan are still alive.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Well,The Rothschilds sure are pushing for the big one.

reply to post by SLAYER69


is that the best you got?

Can anyone imagine, how "dumb" this statement is?

In the 80's Ronald Reagan came up with his "Star Wars" idea. What "Star Wars"? An idea, that you can use "laser swords", and that you can actually do "fencing" with them?

The idea of this technology is so absurd, it's funny ... if anyone really comes up with the notion of wanting to fight you, you're defenceless. Because, you are basically (I'm talking about this shield here) trying to to fencing with laser swords ... like Darth Vader, and Obi Van Kenobi ... hey it was funny when I was a kid. But we're talking about grown up people here ... seriously speeking.

I'm gonna use a bomb, to fend of a bomb ... that is the same thing, as saying "I'm using a laser sword for fencing". It's equally absurd.

Am I the only person, who actually GOT this scenario? Am I really talking to a lot of turds that didn't see the idiocy in trying to fend of a laser, with a laser? Or a bomb, with a bomb?

We lived in peace, duing the Cold War, because we had balance in power between the Soviet Union and the US. We in the west, only have one "pole" right now ... and so everything is screwed up. There is nothing to counter things.

Or, how does the scenario of "blowing a nuke in the skies" help? yes, it's really gonna help to blow a hole in the ozon layer isn't it? Of the two, the nuke and the sun ... I'd prefer the nuke, thanks.

The fact of the matter is, ladies and gentlemen ... is that these characters have been building a lot of "nothing" for trillions of dollars. And they've been using up all the resources and money in the west in the process.

Imagine this ... let's say someone sends a "splinter bomb" missile over denmark. How is it going to help, to blow that missile up over denmark? Wouldn't that just serve the purpose of having the splinters spread even further? doh.

What I am saying is, they're building defences that have no purpose ... for us. It's just a thing to sell to the third world countries, to give others the "false" sense of security. Nobody with any "sense" would rely on this stuff. It's only usable in some tribal warfare, where the parties don't have ability to create their own weaponry.

So, NATO has just said that it now has finished creating merchandise that Ronald Reagan asked for, 30 years ago. And they just finished it, using 30 years of money and man-power to create it. And it's ready to be sold to Saudi Arabia ...

That's basically it.

Originally posted by bjarneorn

Originally posted by sonnny1

Care to share some of those "untranslated" documents,for all to see ?
Any proof to back what you say up?

The proof is overwhelming.

Nakasak, Hiroshima. There are numerous documents, that show the treatment of people and their survival rates of those who were in direct contact with the area.

Pull up your browser, and search for Chernobyl, you'll find cameras and links to "thriving life" there.

The biggest fear, currently is Fukushima ... because it is a proof of concept. It's an enormous fallout, bigger than Chernobyl ... and magically, all the people of Japan are still alive.

Meet the man who survived both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

m.guardian.co.uk...


When I was in Moscow I was also intrigued by the metro system, which lay so deep it could shelter a good majority of the population there in case of a nuclear exchange, smart think by the Russians..

reply to post by bjarneorn


Nuclear missiles are programmed to detonate at a specific altitude (air and ground burst).

If the missile, especially the electronics and guidance system can be destroyed before it reaches the programmed detonation point the payload will NOT explode.

You may end up with some radioactive material to clean up but this is far better than dealing with a 10 Megaton Fission bomb explosion.

The ABM systems are actually designed to break the inbound missle with as little overt damage as possible. No big explosions or fireballs that might lead to various issues. The kinetic type weapons are basically like throwing a very fast and accurate rock at the missile. The laser and wireless type systems burn out the guidance and control system.

It's still highly classified but we even have the capability to "take over" a missile's guidance / control system and can redirect it, shut it off, self destruct it, etc.

Originally posted by ecoparity

If the missile, especially the electronics and guidance system can be destroyed before it reaches the programmed detonation point the payload will NOT explode.

that is just an ignorant position.

We're living in peacetimes, so naturally there are safety measures. But if we go to war, you can be bloody sure that I'll take those safety measures OFF.

First of all, I don't have to use electronics ... I'd prefer to use mechanical pieces. But basically, I neither want mechanical or electronic. The preferred method to strike you, is to have the nuclear war head open at great altitude and dispearse many warheads at that height. These warheads are not electronic in nature. The electronics used today, are a safety measure.

Any explosive, exploding on a "true" warhead ... would "ensure" the warhead explodes. It's as simple as that. If we go to war, there is no option for the warhead ... not to explode. The very "best" scenario you'd have, would be a melting core at your feet.

Safety measures, are in the "delivery" device ... currently thse are in the exploding device as well.

Preferrably, I'd put safety measures in your handgun. To make sure, if you point that thing at me ... it wouldn't fire. But that doesn't prevent you, from removing the electronics, and using the basic mechanics only.

In fact, every military in the western world traines with this scenario ... they train with using only the "basic" stuff, only the "mechanical" stuff. Becase we already know, the rest may or will be basically useless in a real war scenario.

Your shield is, and always will be useless ... except as mershantice to sell to third world countries.

And guiding systems, with GPS and satellites aren't going to help you in these cases either. They only serve to protect you, against your own weaponry ... when this weaponry is used by a third world country, that doesn't have the ability to advance it's own weapons.

You can be as sure as a hole in the ground, that if the SHTF and we go to war. I'd make sure to bypass these means.

There are numerous ways to which I could do that ... a cruise missile, an orbital drop ... and what will be delivered in a real war, is nothing that will not blow up, if shot at. Or if suffer a shock.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Isn't this why we protect our ground troops with our advanced tanks? Hello? I'm sure our troops are grateful that our Tank technology is among the best in the world. Isn't it too bad that inferior technology causes an imbalance in losses for the other side. Maybe the aggressor should invest in better technology before attacking a superior force?

Who is it that thinks that a missile "shield" is purely defensive? Once deployed along your border and pointed at you, how do you know if the missile is "defensive" or not? There is no real way of knowing until they are used. And if one thing today, tomorrow they may switched out for something else.

Operation Desert "Shield" comes to mind.

Don't anyone be surprised when the Russians reinstall their counter "shield" in Cuba. People are too young to remember that game of brinksmanship. We had nuclear missiles in Turkey. The Soviets were installing them in Cuba. A lot of saber rattling later a bargain was stuck to remove both.

When I heard they were going to do this in Poland, I thought, here we go again. Expecting the Russians to roll over and play dead about this is indicative of current US policy. Dumb, just dumb to believe that we should run the world like this. But se la vie, every empire has thought this throughout history.

Masters of the world, huh Mein Fuhrer?

Originally posted by intrptr

Masters of the world, huh Mein Fuhrer?

yeah, the master race.

But, don't put it beyond the russians and the west, to already have come to a deal over this. Basically, this shield is useless against the Russians. They already have weaponry capable of overcoming this ...

Imagine the amount of money and resources, developed over 30 years, just to put this up. I wouldn't be surprised if it was already up in Saudi, Bahrain, etc.

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.

MAD only works if moderatley sane people are on both sides (sane people would get rid of the lot). When you have insane people (a few dictators) and, this is the scary bit, groups of people brainwashed with religious ideology, then MAD no longer works.

How do you defened yourself against an aggressor who actually believes that your destruction by any means is deemed by God AND even worse, if they die it it is for the glory of God and they will go to paradise in heaven?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

The world has changed, WMD's either nuclear or bological can be made and launched by groups not nations.

reply to post by bjarneorn

But, don't put it beyond the russians and the west, to already have come to a deal over this. Basically, this shield is useless against the Russians. They already have weaponry capable of overcoming this ...

What if it's not a "shield"? What if like Desert Storm, this is but a further step in the overall plan to world domination or NWO or whatever they call it nowadays? You do remember Desert Storm beginning as Desert "Shield"?

If like you say there is no problem with the system pointing down your throat, then you wouldn't mind if the Russians install radar domes and launchers in say, Canada and Mexico? To "shield" the North American Continent?

Ridiculous preposition. Thousands of miles away the US is "protecting" Europe. I don't buy it either.

Edit: It always begins with, "This is for your own protection."

So let me get this straight? Poland being a member of NATO, and they are not allowed to host this piece of equipment in their country as an ally in the organization? Oh, just because Big Bad Ivan says so? Russia needs to get with the program and realize that the Cold War is over, and their sphere of influence no longer descends upon Eastern Europe. I realize they are upset with this equipment, and if they want to reorganize their ballistic missile capability in response? Go ahead! Anymore threats and innuendos are up to them. Personally, I don't see what the hub bub is over this missile shield, but I am not privy to the inside information.

This little melodrama has been going on for years, and I have seen a lot of effort put forth by those who would install this missile shield to keep Russia engaged on the development, capabilities, and reach of such a piece of defensive equipment. Throughout the whole process Russia has been kicking and screaming and had fits about reigning down nuclear hellfire on Europe. I suppose old habits die hard?

This is adress of nation, of Russian people ...he warned you

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
the missile shield will stop the first... dozen? 20? missiles?

What about the other thousand after that?

What happens if who ever is attacking, launched missiles at the anti-missile shield FIRST, and then send their nukes flying?

sense = 0

As far as we know only Russia has this capability.

If Russian weapons workmanship is anything like Chernobyl I strongly suspect that half of their missiles wouldn't work anyway!

But seriously..

Good on NATO!

Russia can throw as many teddies out the pram they like..

Who give a crap what they think??

I certainly do not..

The creeping western militarization of the former Warsaw pact countries continues and creates more tension between Russia and the US, and Europe. Early 90's NATO gave promises to Russia that they wouldn't expand to their former sphere of influence and that Russian security would be guaranteed. 20 years later it's like we're in the cold war once again, with the West pushing new missiles to the former Russian sphere of influence to "protect" itself from weapons that do not exist - unless this shield is targeted against Russia. And it most likely is. Russia is perfectly aware of this, and has been fighting it for years. What this will do is create more unnecessary tension in Europe. On the other hand this also plays into the hands of Putin, as he can now clearly show that Russia is still threatened by the west, which will help him consolidate his power even further - if that's necessary.