NATO declares missile shield up and running

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL

By your logic, cops shouldn't have kevlar vests, soldiers shouldn't have kevlar vests, having no protection would mean no-one gets hurt.

You bring me early morning fail in Germany.

reply to post by beezzer


It is not the same logic dude. There is a reason why the ABMs were limited under the ABM treaties. Are you saying your smarter than the rocket scientists?

reply to post by neo96


This anti-missile shield is designed to affect the retaliatory strike which gives the initial attacker an advantage which was the whole purpose of limiting ABMs under the ABM treaty

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Tit for Tat East vs West. It's been going on for decades now. Yet, Poland has played it's part thus far.

Russia wont/can't do a damn thing unless they want to kick off the BIG one. But please, feel free to wish death and destruction to rain down on the Polish people

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by beezzer

 

It is not the same logic dude. There is a reason why the ABMs were limited under the ABM treaties. Are you saying your smarter than the rocket scientists?

edit on 123131p://5America/ChicagoMon, 21 May 2012 00:24:58 -0500 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)

Um, yes, actually.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Russia can make a ground movement and take over those bases, no need for nukes. While they may sustain losses, any invading force loses people. If the polish people did not want this they need to replace their government that is friendlier to Russia as Opposed to the USA which is a world apart.

reply to post by beezzer


No your not unless you are a rocket scientist who is an expert in these things. The US did not make an ABM because to USAF planners it was better to have no defense at all than to have one that would create a war. That is part of the MAD doctrine.

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.

So how about the russians stop working on their missile defenses too?

You do know that every sam since way back when has had a secondary mode for anti ballistic missile defense right?

You also know that the Russians unlike the US also staff and maintain these missile batteries around key installations right?

SO how about the Russkies put away their missile shield and we'll put away ours?

Then it'll be even steven.

As it is the Russkies are just mad that we've taken one option from their quiver of options other than total thermonuclear war off the table.

The reality is this isn't even aimed at the Russians anyway as you and several others have pointed out the Russians have enough missiles to saturate any defense we could hope to put up. Ergo this is not even about the Russians it's about other actors who possess a more limitted but still dangerous number of these missiles. (cough Middle East Cough Korea)

The S-300 is a series of Russian long range surface-to-air missile systems produced by NPO Almaz, all based on the initial S-300P version. The S-300 system was developed to defend against aircraft and cruise missiles for the Soviet Air Defence Forces. Subsequent variations were developed to intercept ballistic missiles. The S-300 was jointly produced by Almaz with Samsung Group of South Korea since 1993.[3]

That's quoted directly from the S300 wiki.... so how about the Russians give up their missile shield first in an act of good faith then maybe we can consider giving up ours.

reply to post by neo96


Not in MAD Doctrine. Both sides in the 1970s looked at the situation and determined that ABM shields were offensive because it made MAD less effective and thus was born the ABM treaty.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Russia can make a ground movement and take over those bases, no need for nukes

NATO doctrine would be to use Nukes if there ever were a massive Russian Armored assault.

Tell me you read up on the old Soviet/WARSAW pact vs US/NATO scenarios? Because you always seem to think the West would just shake in their boots and run away.

While they may sustain losses, any invading force loses people. If the polish people did not want this they need to replace their government that is friendlier to Russia as Opposed to the USA which is a world apart.

Well as you attempted to point out, Russia already tried that.Meanwhile, the Missile shield is in place..
No?

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


How do you figure since the only time that missile DEFENSE shield be activated is when some idiot fired upon them?

There is no way they can be deemed an offensive weapon for the simple fact of their payloads.

reply to post by SLAYER69


And if there is nuke use the first one who sets them off would be responsible. We all know the west shakes in the boots that is why the USA has only fought third world countries since WW2

reply to post by neo96


It is deemed an offensive weapon under the treaties because lets say USA fires nukes first and has shields up MAD would not working giving USA first strike advantage

It assists in first strike and both sides have classified it as offensive as such

reply to post by SLAYER69


Yes the missile shield is in place which makes nuclear war more likely.

Neo don't you know our very existence is an OFFENSIVE act? We should feel bad for even existing for the mortal offense it causes those bastions of freedom and everything that's right in the world like radical islam, Russia, and North Korea.




Still waiting for a reason why the russians are allowed to have a missile shield but we aren't....?

I mean heck the Russians staff and arm an entire Air defense grid in their country composed of missiles that can and will make attack runs on ballistic missiles if they are called to.

The US .... well nto so much. We have a few sam sites around a couple key installations but for the most part we got nothing. And yet it's an ACT OF WAR for us to protect ourselves from groups other than Russia.... This just doesn't make any logical sense.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Bull crap the payload says otherwise icbm's carry a variety of other payloads most common is nuclear the payload on an anti ballistic intercepter is what now?

enough to neutralize the target in flight meaning that is in no way or will ever be used as an offensive weapon.

They have better things to be using.

reply to post by neo96


Regardless of what you think scientists have classified it correctly

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
And if there is nuke use the first one who sets them off would be responsible. We all know the west shakes in the boots that is why the USA has only fought third world countries since WW2

AND...

Russia got their rears handed to them in Afghanistan [Third world country] something to the tune of 19,000

AND...

China pulled out of Vietnam [Third world country] back in 1979 after only a few months when Hanoi put a hurting on them...

Your point?

History books [Not conspiracies] are your friends

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
This anti-missile shield is an act of aggression.

oxymoronic:conjoining contradictory terms (as in `deafening silence').

Im glad NATO is doing something right for a change. Not doing anything,might be its strongest point.....