Slashdot Mirror
Russia Threatens Pre-emptive, Destructive Force On US Missile Defense
suraj.sun sends this quote from an article at the BBC:
"Russia says it is prepared to use 'destructive force pre-emptively' if the U.S. goes ahead with controversial plans for a missile defense system based in Central Europe. The warning came after the Russian defense minister said talks on missile defense were nearing a dead end. Moscow fears that missile interceptors would be a threat to Russia's security. But the U.S. and NATO say they are intended to protect against attacks from Iran or North Korea. 'A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens,' chief of the Russian defense staff Gen Nikolai Makarov said. President Barack Obama ... scrapped plans for a network of bases spread across Poland and the Czech Republic with the capacity to intercept long-range missiles. But in 2010, the U.S. signed an agreement with Poland to use an old airstrip at Redzikowo, near the Baltic coast, as a missile defense base."
There goes the planet.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Between all the arrogant saber-rattling over Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and China, you would think the U.S. not only thinks it can go it alone on everything, but may just stumble like a blind fool right into a world war.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Please let it happen before the end of 2012, otherwise all those Mayan calculations that the world will end in this year will go to waste... :p
Not sure what we'd do without it....
Do you have ESP?
This is weird on so many levels.
So - what's really going on here?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
They call it a threat because it neutralizes the "Mutually Assured Destruction" balance that has thus far prevented thermonuclear war from being a viable option. If they can't shoot missiles at us, but we can shoot missiles at them, then there's nothing preventing us from just nuking them out of existence next time we have a disagreement.
The cold war is still pretty fresh in some people's minds...
oh, BBC news ...
Is this 1980? What the hell does Russia care about...anything?
Signed,
An American
It's about time a major power steps up. It had to take Russia to do it. Shame on your Europe.
This is a repost of the beginnings of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Just with Poland and the Czech Republic instead of Turkey.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
My understanding is that the missile system IS for our defense. The idea is to place the defenses closer to the origin of the missiles, so they have more time to react and can destroy them further from populated areas. (like over the Atlantic maybe?)
It also opens up options like using fast, guided micro-missiles that tail their target for an easy hit at low relative speeds, instead of something that has to be pinpoint precise and catch the target head-on at high relative speeds.
Dear fucking idiot: The defense shield has always been to defend North America, not Europe. Have you not read the news at any point in the last 5 yrs? And if not, why comment on something you don't know about?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I remember reading an insightful remark, years ago, on CNN.com from some high-ranking DoD official. He said the Cold War was World War 3. He went on to say the fight against Islamic extremism is World War 4, which is more questionable (the scope and scale of the conflict is much less than any other World War).
So the U.S. has already stumbled into World Wars III and IV, and is now going for WWV! I guess WWII turned out so well for us, our leaders are eager to repeat the experience.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
let's not piss off the ruskies... I mean... the entire world doesn't like us already, and threatening someone's military in any way could be construed as an (pre-emptive) act of war.
Can't we get some people in office who will straighten things out by giving answers and not politician rhetoric?
âoeThose who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.â â George Gordon Byron
... or is Putin getting crazier as he gets older? Is he heading down the mad old dictator route of many past soviet general secretaries?
Perhaps the west should carry out a pre-emptive strike on all those russian arms shipments to various unpleasent regimes around the planet (yes I know the west is hardly squeeky clean in that regard too but the russians well sell to pretty much anyone with a big enough wallet).
Yeah, it is just you.
If you think what US is doing is ok, then noone can help you.
The other meanings of "MAD" are not lost on anybody; but it isn't really a new concept.
Theory goes that, in the presence of multiple nuclear powers with overwhelming destructive capability, only the ability to launch a second-strike of sufficient magnitude to dissuade anybody from launching a first-strike against you is a viable defense.
If one party obtains an actually functional anti-missile system, they neutralize everybody else's second-strike capacity, and thus enjoy the ability to launch first-strikes at their pleasure.
Unfortunately, most of this stuff was hammered out under the cold war logic of an environment with ~2 main actors, both presumed to be rationally self-interested, with easy attribution of nuclear strikes, and other favorable conditions. It doesn't work nearly as nicely if you go to N actors, introduce actors who are either irrational or interested in various apocalypses, or dream up delivery mechanisms that make attribution hard...
(The cynics might also argue that both the US and Russia aren't entirely uninterested in playing at cold war, since they both have decades of experience with it, a glut of high-level policy types who were trained under the assumption that that would be their job, and both have discovered that 'dialog with North Korea' and 'Fundamentalist Sandbox Meatgrinder' are lousy games. Plus, the cold war was probably the historical high water mark for buying awesome toys from defense contractors without actually having to learn their weaknesses the hard way all that often...)
They must know more than everyone else.
In this particular case, we are putting the missile-defense systems there because that is the convenient place for them(if they could be sited elsewhere, that would actually be more sensible. Anti-missile installations aren't especially robust against anything but(possibly, if you believe the vendor) the task of shooting down ICBMs, so you really want them as far away from the ground and air forces of potentially hostile powers as you can get them.)
In the general case, um, probably inertia? And our airbase in Germany is pretty convenient for medvac stuff?
Let's see how the US likes pre-emptive strikes against its stuff.
Signed,
The world
A "pre-emptive strike" against a defensive system is not justified. The Russians should also consider that any "pre-emtpive strike" will result in retaliation and weigh that before deciding. If the Russians are willing to go to war against the US over and defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to, then they really just want war anyway.
Signed,
An American Soldier
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
If we are serious about using this system to stop nuclear war through ballistic missiles, then let them have it. Sure, the info will trickle down to the secondary and tertiary nuclear powers, but it will have created another design hurtle.
Unless it's trivial to trick the system. In which case, our government should have cut its losses a long time ago but, like the idiot humans who comprise the system, are suckers for the sunk cost fallacy.
Very much this, giving everyone missile defense tech not only ensures good will ("Look we aren't planning on shooting missiles at you, and just in case you think we would, now you can defend against them too") but makes the populaces safer world-wide.
True, but there's nothing stopping Russia from having an identical missile defence. Why don't they just build their own equivalent?
because it cost too much for the ussr to wage star wars.
it's not a real defence anyways if the russians have still working subs.
+ it's about europe. mainly. not about us vs. russian mutual destruction. and the shield would be useful only for attacks done mainly for shits'n'giggles so...
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
and an offensive strike is simply defensive.
Gently reply
They call it a threat because it neutralizes the "Mutually Assured Destruction" balance that has thus far prevented thermonuclear war from being a viable option. If they can't shoot missiles at us, but we can shoot missiles at them, then there's nothing preventing us from just nuking them out of existence next time we have a disagreement.
The cold war is still pretty fresh in some people's minds...
See, that's the problem. Russian missiles are set to travel over the North Pole, not over Europe. This system would only defend against missiles targeting Europe, and even then its debatable. Of course, let's not even start on submarine and mobile launchers.
This system is no threat to Russia or MAD.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Dear fucking idiot: The defense shield has always been to defend North America, not Europe. Have you not read the news at any point in the last 5 yrs? And if not, why comment on something you don't know about?
And of course the French showed they were a bunch of pacifist pansies when it came to toppling Gaddafi.
My understanding is that the missile system IS for our defense. The idea is to place the defenses closer to the origin of the missiles, so they have more time to react and can destroy them further from populated areas. (like over the Atlantic maybe?)
It also opens up options like using fast, guided micro-missiles that tail their target for an easy hit at low relative speeds, instead of something that has to be pinpoint precise and catch the target head-on at high relative speeds.
Why not adapt a missle defense system to our current fleet of submarines...or if not feasible, create a new class of submarines to meet the requirements. As long as we aren't using kinetic energy weapons or lasers, it should be do-able.
A "pre-emptive strike" against a defensive system is not justified. The Russians should also consider that any "pre-emtpive strike" will result in retaliation and weigh that before deciding. If the Russians are willing to go to war against the US over and defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to, then they really just want war anyway.
Signed,
An American Soldier
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
Also, would you consider a missile launch silo as an offensive or defensive system?
How can you be stupid is beyond me.
Europe is the good conscience of Western Ideology. If it goes, there will be nothing left but christian fundamentalism, plutocracy and Rush Limbaugh.
I do not want to live in that world.
Yea, the world isn't fare is it. The United States has the Worlds Largest Military. So you need to tread lightly when attacking the US. Not that I am supporting the idea to pre-emptive attack Iraq (and I am quite angry how loose the information on the WMD was). However you don't mess with the USA. And they are not going to just take it and go "Well I Guess we had it coming"
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It has nothing to do with the USSR.
Russia has a history of being invaded and the paranoia is deeply embedded in the psyche of her peoples and leaders. They've had a very long history long before the USSR existed.
Secondly, it's about power and her leaders wanting to continue to appear to be a World military power - not only to the rest of the World but also for her peoples.
If Europe and the US were smart, they'd would include Russia in on the defense. After all it is in their interests too to defend against N. Korea and any Middle Eastern threats - even the broken states that they back themselves (Syria). If Europe is attacked, Russia's very lucrative gas and other energy franchises would go down in flames.
Russia should be on board with this. Europe's security is their's also and they need to realize that this isn't the 18th or 19th or even early 20th century. They can be a valuable force in World peace and stability if they (and the US for that matter) would give up this illusionary dichotomy of World power structure.
Also, I'm not sure what they hope to hit this base with as a pre-emptive strike. I can almost guarantee that they'll have SAM and Patriot PAC-3 emplacements surrounding the facility while it's being built, plus they'll likely have a couple Burke and Tico ships with Aegis BMD sitting in the Baltic or the North Sea, just in case. So, unless they're going to risk an all-out ground assault, or try to bomb this with conventional aircraft, I think they're SOL. Our military is too good to allow them to do anything material, and our defensive systems would be able to repel a pretty good amount of anything they'd be able to fire at us. Plus, the Aegis Ashore program that's slated to go here is built extremely quickly, once the vertical launch system (VLS) is installed. They wouldn't have much time to act.
Europe just acts like they are grown up and can create a liberal organization, then they have the US fight for them, so the US takes all the heat they get all the benefits.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
This is kind of like the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I'm sorry, because you can't speak English, I get to berate you. Berate, berate. Try again in your own country.
It may not happen today, or this year, but it will happen some day. As crazy as the world is today, and knowing the nature of humans, world destruction is coming.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
... or is Putin getting crazier as he gets older?
Yeah, it is just you.
If you think what US is doing is ok, then noone can help you.
I know everything big, bad America does is evil and all, but threatening a pre-emptive attack against a defensive installation is pretty crazy. Especially when this is a NATO deal, and Poland doesn't seem to have any problem with letting the US build a base in their country.
Correct. The SM-3 interceptor missile only has a range of about 270 nautical miles (according to the Wikipedia). It's likely got more range than that, but that information would be classified. For this system to be effective against Russia, we'd need to place defensive sites throughout the Russian homeland, or put an Aegis BMD ship every 500 miles along its coast.
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
I'm sorry - I didn't realize that Afghanistan or Iraq were part of Russia's sovereign territory.
Also, would you consider a missile launch silo as an offensive or defensive system?
If the missile is designed to shoot down attacking missiles or airplanes and has no offensive capability, it is defensive in nature. If it can drop a nuclear warhead on Moscow, it's pretty clearly offensive.
How can you be stupid is beyond me.
I just realized that I felt the need to respond to another comment of yours in this thread. It is pretty clear that you are just full of blind hatred for the US, which probably makes you think that other people can't possibly have valid opinions that might paint the US in a more benign light.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
the Doomsday Clock is incremented. Since of course if Russia does this it will probably involve nukes.
After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
Right. The system that they're putting in place, Aegis Ashore, is based on Aegis BMD, a Naval Ballistic Missile Defense system. It's a hit-to-kill system that targets warheads in their exo-atmospheric phase. We would want them to be downrange of any location that would be launching the missiles, because it's not a boost-phase interceptor. You need to wait for the warheads to go outside the atmosphere before you can knock them down.
If missile defense is truly to protect against rogue states, why not ask Russia to cooperate on a join defense system that can protect the US, NATO alliance nations and Russia? It seems that bilateral cooperation would go a long way toward easing fears that we're trying to weaken Russia's position, and I would imagine such an extensive missile defense network would make rogue ballistic launches significantly less threatening on the international stage.
Cooperation was actually proposed by the Russians. IIRC, the Russians wanted to have their finger on a "kill" switch for the system. There is also concern about sharing sensitive military technology with them.
What, in your opinion, are we doing wrong? Putting BMD in a foreign country, a country that's signed off on this, and WANTS us to put the interceptors there? Protecting the whole of Europe from an attack by way of Iran? Oh, and paying for it, too! Yeah, I guess we're the assholes.
No, they know Americans believe this thing actually works.
Remember, MAD only keeps countries from starting a war if they all know about it. If US leaders convince itself they can attack Russia or China safely, eventually US will attack Russia or China. To be honest, I am surprised how religious nuts in Bush administration didn't start a nuclear war -- they believed, God protects the US.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Ummm...because the interceptor site hasn't been built yet?
If they can't shoot missiles at us, but we can shoot missiles at them, then there's nothing preventing us from just nuking them out of existence next time we have a disagreement.
Fine. We'll just agree not to use it against their missiles. They just need to call 60 minutes before any launch.
Man, wouldn't it be sweet if nukes were no longer viable because they couldn't accomplish anything, instead of because they're so effective they're practically guaranteed to end civilization the next time they're used?
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
Here's what they know: The US (specifically, that well-known liberal peacenik Richard Nixon) signed a treaty in 1972 specifically saying that nobody was allowed to do anti-ballistic missile defense, specifically so that there would always be a MAD scenario if somebody decided to strike. Then George W Bush basically told the Russians to go to hell and that the US was ignoring the treaty. Then they spent a lot of time and money trying to improve their anti-ballistic missile defense. Now Barack Obama is deploying anti-ballistic missile defense right near Russia's border.
Another way of thinking about it: Would you be fine with $EVIL_EMPIRE deploying missile defense in Cuba, Mexico, and Canada?
I get the joke, but the fact that the US is deploying it suggests that they think they have something useful.
I am officially gone from
The US has. Many times. Russian doesn't want the interceptors anywhere near their borders, regardless of the intent or the level of cooperation.
Dear fucking idiot: The defense shield has always been to defend North America, not Europe.
And that's why it's in eastern Europe and not northern Canada.
Dear fucking idiot: the earth is round.
Are they threatening to shoot missiles at our missile defense? Really? I almost want to see how well that goes for them. How many missiles will they go through before they figure it out?
Additionally, I am quite surprised, no shocked really, that Russia would have so little respect for the sovereignty of Poland! Given the long history of these two countries relationship and past cooperation I, um, oh yeah, nevermind...
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
Also, would you consider a missile launch silo as an offensive or defensive system?
How can you be stupid is beyond me.
Where did anyone ever say the US was building missile silos? This whole thing is solely over a missile defense network. Those are made up of radar, ABM batteries, and usually a few SAM batteries as well for protection against ground attack fighters. ABM batteries are not built in silos. And since when where Iraq and Afghanistan preemptive strikes against defensive systems? Afghanistan was the equivalent of striking your opponents camp. It was their training ground, their support base, where they went to refit, replan, and retrain. This is also where the initial, provoking attack was planned for and trained for. Afghanistan was a legitimate military target, and the broad support that went into the invasion proved so. The only ones against it were your staunchly anti-war people and, I'm sorry to say, as long as 2 humans are left alive on this planet, there will be war.
Now, Iraq is where it gets a bit tricky. Had Bush been wanting to get Saddam for a while? Yes, that's pretty well documented. Was AQ in Iraq? Not until after we invaded it. Had Saddam used WMDs before? Yes, both on his own civilian populations and against military targets. Were there any WMDs in Iraq? Not that were found. Did he want us to think he had WMDs? Yes. Essentially, he bluffed, we called it. International relations is like poker, the highest stakes game you can imagine. What Russia is doing right now is raising on pocket 2s. They're posturing, nothing more, and trying to get the US to back down.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
What about their subs? Their subs are ancient compared to the what the US possesses.
So? So long as the Uranium arrives safely at its destination than it doesn't matter how old their subs are.
No sig today...
If you don't think this system works, you're more delusional than the Russians.
It is not a defensive system, not to the Russians anyway. It's true enough that it could be used defensively against Iran and North Korea, but it has an offensive role in an all out war against Russia. It breaks MAD, and while MAD is a ridiculously suicidal way to run a planet, it did manage to get us through the cold war pretty well.
See, here's the thing. The Russians know that even with their aging fleet of ICBMs, they can still overload any conceivable missile defense system. If the US has N interceptors gaurding New York City all Russia has to do is launch N+1 missiles at it (actually considerably less since the interception success rate is going to be much lower in real combat situations). And that ignores all the relatively cheap anti-interception technologies that could be used. So why are they so pissed? Because the US also just happens to also have a fleet of nuclear launch capable submarines, a fleet of stealth bombers, and hundreds of nuclear cruise missiles (which have been mothballed but could be easily brought back into service). A properly designed first strike could hit literally hundreds of targets inside Russia with nuclear weapons with less than 30 minutes warning.
Now, it's kind of hard to coordinate your counter attack when every military base in the country is a glowing glass crater. That's not to say they wouldn't have missiles, they'd have plenty, and the commanders in charge of them would have the authority to launch them, but launch them where? Without the communication and planning, the counter attack is going to be staggered, disorganized, and concentrated. Exactly the situation where a missile defense like the one the US is deploying could be effective against the Russians. The Russians are pissed about it (and about Star Wars in the 80s) because it gives the US a real first strike capability against them.
And yes, right now nuclear war is unlikely. But what about 30 years from now? What about 50? 50 years ago the US and Russia were staring at each other off the coast of Cuba, waiting for the other one to blink to decide who would be blamed for starting nuclear Armageddon. A lot can change in half a century.
.. defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to ..
Signed, An American Soldier
You are only presenting selected parts of the picture there, Soldier:
a) A missile array is a missile array: with todays modular technologies "defensive" can become "area denial" or "offensive" in a matter of minutes; if you are saying otherwise (i.e. that the array "poses no threat") bear in mind that you are not trying to convince the evening news audience, but experienced war generals that command the world's largest arsenal;
b) how about the Russians offering you "unfettered access" to a similar system in Cuba, established there to protect their interests (perhaps Russian businesses in the US) from potential radical central and south american rogue elements;
c) I am no pronounced military strategist, but opening many fronts (as the US is doing in the present era) comes with benefits as well as costs: there is NO WAY today's superpowers can tackle conflicts like the ones the US is maintaining, and at the SAME time take on skirmishes with another superpower: the Russians are well aware of this, and they know that they absolutely can vaporize the array and get away with it- and they are letting you know that they will do it. Remember that China is also a superpower, and good luck getting them on the table and heaving them your way while engaged in tens of other conflicts, especially in a decade or so when their orbital, ICBM, naval and electronic warfare capabilities will be much more enhanced in comparison with the present day.
d) as a soldier, I am sure you know that the one who strikes first, strikes many times and keeps on striking, get's to win. This array is just too close, its implementation is seen as an act of aggression, and you and I or anybody else might claim otherwise but that is of no consequence: the truth is that the Russians see it as a threat, and they are issuing a warning that if built, they are going to blow it into pieces. Not you, not your cities, not your country: only a base such as this one.
Bottomline, you can't have the cake and eat it. So go on, be my guest, spend billions of dollars and thousands of manhours to see it all vaporized in a jiffy, ignite global tensions, destroy families and sacrifise young soldier's lives (I don't expect the array to be unmanned when it gets hit) to back up a bunch of retarded arguments.
The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
Yeah... North Korea? I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to fire your missiles so they pass over Poland first, okay? That'd be great....
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Theory goes that, in the presence of multiple nuclear powers with overwhelming destructive capability, only the ability to launch a second-strike of sufficient magnitude to dissuade anybody from launching a first-strike against you is a viable defense. If one party obtains an actually functional anti-missile system, they neutralize everybody else's second-strike capacity, and thus enjoy the ability to launch first-strikes at their pleasure.
Except, in the case of US/Russia(assuming the missiles are flying east to west), any secondary strike would be launched BEHIND this proposed defensive line, in a direction in which the US does not have and fixed defenses and would have to rely purely on ships and interceptors to shoot down the missiles. That is the whole purpose of a ballistic missile fleet. It's a mobile, hard to track, independent dead man switch that can be used from behind any forward defenses. So this defensive line is not in any way destabilizing or removing Russia's first or even second strike capability. All they are doing is posturing.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Defend North America from imaginary Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles, and at the same time from Russian ICBMs. I totally get them in this issue. USA withdrew unilaterally from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. What kind of politics is that? Why the hell destabilize a perfectly good relationship because of some imaginary threat? USA truly is the largest threat to this planet.
There would be absolutely no strategic value to a Russian missile defense system in Cuba and Venezuela, not unless the United States wanted to launch a couple primitive SCUD-like missiles at those countries. What the Russians don't want is an American military presence in Central Europe. They want Poland to be in their sphere of influence like in the good old days, and they see this as a move into their territory. They themselves know that a missile defense system will be no threat to their defensive or offensive capabilities.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
One, Uranium isn't used as a fissile material in modern nuclear weapons. It might be used to boost the reaction, but Plutonium is the element of choice. B, what's the first thing that our military is instructed to do when the defensive level of the nation is raised? Find the Russian subs and shadow them. Why? Because as soon as the order is given, we'd be ready to make big holes in the ocean. Don't think it's possible? The oldest attack subs in our fleet are still two decades ahead of Russian missile or attack subs. We also have significant investment in satellite monitoring that enables us to keep tabs on Russian fleet subs. Russia has about 12 active missile subs in service. Of those, probably five are laid up for service. Two are probably in the process of rotting, and the rest are probably in various states of disrepair, and not capable of staying on station for anywhere near what the US Navy's subs can do.
Russian missiles are set to travel over the North Pole, not over Europe. This system would only defend against missiles targeting Europe,
Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes. Protecting those with a missile defense system leaves Russia at a huge disadvantage in any nuke war--and seriously upsets the Mutually-Assured-Destruction balance of power.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
I'm sorry - I didn't realize that Afghanistan or Iraq were part of Russia's sovereign territory.
They are sovereign nations by their own right. Surely you're not so naive as to think that the first round of bombings weren't targeted at defensive installations, are you?
If the missile is designed to shoot down attacking missiles or airplanes and has no offensive capability, it is defensive in nature.
So... shooting down airplanes != "offensive capability?" Really dude? Really?
Damn if that's not some straight up, dumb-ass shit right there...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Nothing. In fact, they've already started.
For its part, Russia has put into commission a radar system in its Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad which is capable of monitoring missile launches from Europe and the North Atlantic.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I will also point out that this is, in fact posturing. The threat to the Russians is minimal. I think what they are really trying to do is keep countries like Iran and NK in play to keep the US off balance.
However, I wouldn't underestimate the Russian's capabilities. They're not exactly the Red Steamroller of old, but they still have some decent equipment. Pocket twos are a middling hand, but if you can sneak into the flop with them on the cheap, you can easily make money when they turn into trips or a house when you get some community cards. It all depends on what game they are playing.
...or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb the other day and this kind of reminds me of it. At least in here, they are wise enough to not forget to tell people about their intentions. It seems people do learn from mistakes, or movies for that matter.
Many posters seem to ignore that the difference between "offensive" and "defensive" missile systems are nothing but marketing.
Having USA missiles stationed anywhere in Eastern Europe is a threat both to Europe (because those missile stations will be first or retaliation strike targets) as well as a threat to Russia AND Europe because they can easily be used for offensive purposes, and being stationed that close almost impossible to intercept.
How would the USA feel about Russian missiles stationed in Mexico close to the border?
A "pre-emptive strike" against a defensive system is not justified. The Russians should also consider that any "pre-emtpive strike" will result in retaliation and weigh that before deciding. If the Russians are willing to go to war against the US over and defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to, then they really just want war anyway.
Signed,
An American Soldier
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
I'll start with the easy one, Afghanistan. Remember 9-11? Remember who was the most responsible for that? Yeah, that Bin Laden guy. Do you know where he was? That's right! Afghanistan. When we asked nicely for the Taliban to hand him over, they balked. So, we assisted the Northern Alliance in defeating them.
Iraq was a bit more complicated. We'll skip the 19 violated UN resolutions and go straight to the acts of war against the US. For starters, there was the repeated firing on US military and civilian personnel trying to enforce those 19 UN resolutions. Then, of course, there was the attempted assassination of a former US President. I'm sure you don't care about the mass graves filled with the corpses of young mothers still holding their children. And there is no doubt that you couldn't care less that the mother had the bullet hole in her head while the toddlers and infants did not. After all, they are only brown people, right? Why should we care about non-white people? (yes, there is sarcasm in there).
Also, would you consider a missile launch silo as an offensive or defensive system?
A launch system is neither. It's the missiles that make that determination. Since these are ground to air missile interceptors, they have no offensive capabilities. Now, if were to put ground to ground missiles in those silos, then it would be an offensive system. We have no plans of doing so and have offered to let the Russians inspect the facilities to confirm that.
How can you be stupid is beyond me.
I think this part speaks for itself.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Wait, they took this idea straight out of Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, didn't they?
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
What I find really scary about nuclear weapons is how little it takes to bring on nuclear winter and world wide famine. Russia could still destroy everyone by nuking themselves. Just 50 nukes could kick up enough dust that crops would not get enough sunshine for at least 7 years. Even Pakistan could have enough nukes to pull that off. Bit difficult to intercept that.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
The US (specifically, that well-known liberal peacenik Richard Nixon) signed a treaty in 1972 specifically saying that nobody was allowed to do anti-ballistic missile defense, specifically so that there would always be a MAD scenario if somebody decided to strike. Then George W Bush basically told the Russians to go to hell and that the US was ignoring the treaty.
I thought treaties has the same force as the US Constitution:
Article VI
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
So is this another case where right-wingers wave the constitution, and then use it as toilet paper?
So... shooting down airplanes != "offensive capability?" Really dude? Really?
Correct, provided that those airplanes are in your airspace.
If we are talking about some kind of long-range missile that can be used to fly a significant distance into another country and take down an airplane, then yeah, that could be considered offensive.
But we're a bit off topic, right? We were talking about an anti-ballistic missile system.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
My understanding is that the missile system IS for our defense. The idea is to place the defenses closer to the origin of the missiles, so they have more time to react and can destroy them further from populated areas. (like over the Atlantic maybe?)
It also opens up options like using fast, guided micro-missiles that tail their target for an easy hit at low relative speeds, instead of something that has to be pinpoint precise and catch the target head-on at high relative speeds.
Which "our" do you mean? This will defend against missiles launched against Central and Western Europe, but attacks on the USA will come over the Arctic, and these sites will be useless against them. Basically, from the Russian PoV these sites defend against a reconquest of the lost parts of the European USSR, which were part of the Empire before WWI.
Can any Ukrainians tell me WHY your country sent all its nuclear weapons back to what was obviously going to be your chief enemy, back when the USSR fell apart?
They already have them there. Just like we have listening posts and ships off their coasts near their naval bases and other strategically important locations.
As has been stated, this system is worthless against a Russian attack on the US. For starters, the shortest distance from Russia to the US is over the Arctic. This is the path the missiles would take and this system is worthless against missiles following a northern trajectory.
Next, you mention America's submarine and bomber force. You do realize that Russians have those too, right? While they do not have stealth bombers, their bomber force is more than adequate and their submarine force is either second to the US only or second to none.
This system is no threat to MAD.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I wonder if "destructive pre-emtive force" means exactly what we initially think.
Perhaps the Russians are hinting of something more subtle, a stuxnet style attack on the systems there.
Of course, I'm not suggesting for one moment they could actually pull it off...
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
So yeah, Russia has enough missiles that they can trivially overwhelm any missile defense shield if it comes to all-out global war. And any nuclear war between the US and Russia will be global. So why do they care about this?
Maybe they're trying to provide some muscle for their friends. Russia is on very good terms with Iran, and stands to gain if the US gets entangled in conflicts with other small nuclear nations. So maybe they've got a deal: Iran gives Russia favorable trade deals, Russia waves its military dick around for Iran's benefit.
So they are USA sovereign territory ?
No, they aren't. Why? What does any of that have to do with Russia attacking a NATO country?
Like US will let some1 go check if they are really defensive or offensive
Actually, that's exactly what they offered Russia.
btw please paint me a better picture of the USA
I don't really feel like that would be a productive conversation.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
This is BS, Russia been whining for a while regarding it being a part of defense system. US says NO.
All of these analogies to Russia putting a missile defense base in Cuba or Mexico are completely bogus.
PROTIP: There are no ballistic missiles in South America to defend against legitimately, so that goes out the fucking window pretty quick.
If Venezuela or Columbia had IRBMs or MRBMs to speak of, and Russia said 'we are setting up defenses in Cuba to protect our communist brothers' it would be an equitable comparison. But please, stop the mindless defense and rationalization of this brinkmanship.
Unquestionably, the United States must now build a limited missile defense system whether the Russians like it or not, since the suicide theologies have created entirely new rows and columns in the threat and response array. But we claim that this system is limited, inoffensive, and vulnerable to being overwhelmed by the major powers so that MAD is preserved.
Solution: we share our anti-missile technology with the Russians and support on-site Russian observers to verify these facts.
Nothing.
I8-D
So you think it can handle 10-100s of inbound warheads at once? While also dealing with hundreds of false targets?
There is no possible way, and you know it.
The ABM Treaty was signed between with the USSR - not Russia. The USSR no longer exists. We're free to do as we please. But feel free to continue to ignore history as it suits your anti-American narrative. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Russia trying to keep it's old sphere of influence.
This is like your crazy, felonious neighbor saying it's unfair for you to lock your doors so they'll just break into your window.
ITT: self-hating libtards blame America for everything
They used to big shots and now cannot bear thought of being second tier power. Their reactions are childish.
No, it's not. The US, on several occasions, has asked to partner with the Russians to combat missiles from Iran and North Korea, as well as other rogue nations. That they refuse to, and sabre rattle, like this, is only because they're the ones selling the missiles and missile technology to the rogue nations. They can't play both sides all the time!
Europe *doesn't* want this. The Poles don't want this. The US is paying for it, because it's part of a full package of arm twisting and bribery to make them accept something that fundamentally makes their position less secure.
"According to a poll by SMG/KRC released by TVP 50 per cent of respondents reject the deployment of the shield on Polish soil, while 36 per cent support it.[41]"
Yes, the US are arseholes here.
Tens, yes. We have enough assets to handle that. There are currently five Ticonderoga-class Cruisers and 16 Arleigh Burke-class Destroyers equipped with BMD in the US fleet, plus five Japanese Destroyers. Spain, Norway, and South Korea are also in talks to equip their Aegis Destroyers with BMD, as well. As for hundreds, strategically, Russia wouldn't risk expending a large percentage of their first strike weapons in one action. If they were going to expend the majority of their arsenal, they'd have little bargaining power, ever again.
Umm... Rumsfeld? Cheney? Rice? Ashcroft? While I agree that other administrations were not much better overall, his combination of religious nuts and ideological warmongers still stands out.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Off the coast, hell. In every embassy and likely every consulate on the planet. Not just our embassies, everybody's. The Russians, the Brits, everybody. Even the Canadians. It's one of those things that everybody does, but nobody talks about, like headquartering the local CIA/KGB/etc station chief in an embassy.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
In military planning, intentions count for nothing. The Russians would never trust our statements about our intentions and, heck, neither would we if these were Russian installations. We don't even trust the British.
There are lots of potential reasons for their actions on both sides of the equation: Maybe the US really does want to protect against attacks, or maybe they want to continue their march to becoming the world government. Maybe Russia feels it won't be needed anymore by its allies if the Americans are protecting them instead. etc... I've no idea.
How many of those are located in each region?
I bet 10s in one place would overwhelm the locations ability to deal with it.
100s would not be that large a percentage, each of those Delta 3-4 subs carries 64 warheads. By treaty they are limited to 2200 warheads. even 1% of that would overwhelm the ability of our anti missile systems. Also those systems are not 100%. I would be very surprised if they can do better than 90%, assuming no decoys are used. Once decoys enter the game you can forget about it. It only takes a small percentage of those warheads getting through to get the job done.
I imagine bargaining is not going to be a major concern after committing to a global nuclear war.
THIS IS WHAT AMERICANS REALLY BELIEVE.
(of all things, _Stalin_ was the most loud opponent of expansion and influence beyond USSR borders -- at least until WWII when country's existence was threatened, first by its enemies, then by its former allies)
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I think the ABM technology only has the ability to shoot down the missiles on their way back down, not on their way up or when they're essentially in low earth orbit. By that logic an installation in Europe would be there to protect our assets and allies in Europe.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
"Meh. No biggie. We'll put the money towards education and healthcare. Maybe build a better train system. It's all good."
... please read the news.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"A decision will be taken to do such-and-such" does not mean the same thing as "we will do such-and-such". It's more like "we will think about considering the possibility of pondering the question of whether we should form a committee to examine the potential for doing such-and-such".
I'm not saying that the Russian claims are actually plausible(especially given the somewhat...mixed...results that anti-missile systems seem to be capable of even under relatively sweetheart test conditions), just responding to the: "Neutralising Russia's offensive capability is a "threat" to Russia. Stopping them from harming other people is a "threat" now." statement by pointing out that the 'defense is a form of offense' logic is by no means novel or Russian; but a generic and decades-old feature of these nuclear deterrence games.
Given that ICBMs appear to be quite difficult to intercept(and only good sportsmanship even obliges you to be so overt, rather than just renting a U-Haul and driving the warhead downtown or any of a number of other sneaky potential strategies), it seems likely that most hand-wringing about missile defenses is premature posturing; but the logic under which it is conducted is quite old.
To keep the military industrial gravy train running. Nothing more, nothing less.
Russia accepted international obligations of USSR, including treaties.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Russia can be responsible for Iran/NK. If they attack, it can retaliate, or face retaliation from the target and its allies, mainly US.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
The United States Foreign policy is easy to understand. It can be summed up in one sentence: Prevent any regional power from becoming a global power. That's it. The way it does this is by supporting small countries that are under the threat of being sucked into the spheres of influence of regional powers. Hence Pakistan vs India, Iraq vs Iran, Japan and Taiwan and the Philippines vs China, the former Soviet Republics and Central Europe vs Russia.
This system went a little fubar in the Middle East because in the 1990s Iraq decided that instead of fighting Iran it would pick on smaller countries, so that it could be the big regional power. Since no one in the region could fight both Iraq and Iran, the United States had to go in itself and try to fix things directly. It didn't work as smoothly as planned, but things seldom do when you resort to war.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Against North Korea it doesn't work because it's on the opposite side of the Earth. There is also a rather important detail that North Korea has no ICBMs in the first place. But most important, the given explanation is based on nothing but xenophobia -- it claims that there are governments (somewhere -- anywhere) literally full of madmen who intend to sacrifice themselves and whole population of their countries for a chance to kill some Americans.
It's obvious that missile defense is supposed to be against other countries that have nuclear weapons and ICBMs, and that US will eventually have disagreements with -- Russia, China, India, possibly even other European countries that will try to leave NATO.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Europe *doesn't* want this. The Poles don't want this. The US is paying for it, because it's part of a full package of arm twisting and bribery to make them accept something that fundamentally makes their position less secure.
"According to a poll by SMG/KRC released by TVP 50 per cent of respondents reject the deployment of the shield on Polish soil, while 36 per cent support it.[41]"
Yes, the US are arseholes here.
So the US is forcing Poland to let them build the base, or Poland's goverment is doing something the Polish people don't seem to want? Because one of them makes the US "arseholes", and the other doesn't.
Russian missiles are set to travel over the North Pole, not over Europe. This system would only defend against missiles targeting Europe,
Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes. Protecting those with a missile defense system leaves Russia at a huge disadvantage in any nuke war--and seriously upsets the Mutually-Assured-Destruction balance of power.
Submarines assure MAD. There is only one level of destroyed when talking about nuclear weapons. In other words, there are enough nuclear missiles in submarines to ensure the total destruction of the US. The US will not sacrifice itself for the purpose of protecting Europe. It's not like we are going to move our entire population over there.
Next is the point "Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes." So Russia is mad because they will lose their ability to conduct a first strike on our first strike nukes? Are they mad because if our first strike came from Europe, they will not be able to strike our now empty European silos? The only benefit to attacking these European nuke sites is that they would not be able to perform a first strike. Well, in this case, the best they could do is a "second strike" since attacking the Euro silos would have been the first strike. The worst this ABM system could do is prevent a Russian first strike in Europe, and frankly, I'm OK with that. Attacking missile silos with nuclear missiles is hardly a defensive move. It is at best an anti retaliatory move, which would imply a Russian first strike.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I've been saving bottlecaps, maybe I'll have more luck in the post-apocalyptic economy.
They call it a threat because it neutralizes the "Mutually Assured Destruction" balance that has thus far prevented thermonuclear war from being a viable option. If they can't shoot missiles at us, but we can shoot missiles at them, then there's nothing preventing us from just nuking them out of existence next time we have a disagreement.
The cold war is still pretty fresh in some people's minds...
Except, of course, it doesn't actually break MAD and the Russians know it. A base in Poland would likely only be effective against missiles launched from well south and west of Moscow. A missile attack on the U.S. from Russia would be going over the Arctic, and missile defense bases in Poland would be useless. Russia knows this, they just don't want the U.S. strengthening ties with Poland - they consider it to be their own playground.
I don't see what Trayvon Martin or the Samsung Galaxy S III have to do with this...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The only winning move is not to play.
sudo make me a sandwich
If missile defense is truly to protect against rogue states, why not ask Russia to cooperate on a join defense system that can protect the US, NATO alliance nations and Russia?
They did, actually the Russians only asked for Russian observes to be stationed at the US missile sites. The United states said, "no way!"
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
The missile defense system was nonsensical when GWB was still in charge. Now we elected someone else (or so we thought) and we are keeping to the same bad plans.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
If the US did launch a pre-emptive large scale nuclear attack at Russia, even if Russia didn't retaliate, the nuclear winter that followed would ensure the US's pre-emptive strike was effectively suicidal.
Recent studies have shown that the predictions made on nuclear winter in the 1980s (independently arrived at by the US and Soviet Union) were in fact highly optimistic. New studies have shown even just a regional conflict, such as Iran/Pakistan with as few as 50 Hiroshima sized weapons destroying significant civilian infrastructure would cause a "nuclear autumn" severe enough to reduce the growing season in the breadbaskets of the west by 60 days. (Nuclear winter is a bit of a misnomer - at its height, during a nuclear winter caused by a large exchange of weapons, at mid-day in the northern hemisphere the light conditions would be equivalent to a moonlit night, and this would continue for months).
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Dear fucking idiot Makarov: don't you know our missile defense systems don't even work?
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Now, how do you think the USA would feel with a USSR intel warship sitting off NYC or Washington, listening in?
Rightfully terrified of these time-traveling soviets
Considering our missiles wouldn't be anywhere near Cuba if we launched them, we would likely be amused at their wasted resources (see also the cold war). Please look at a globe then get back to us.
Also note the flight path of Russian missiles (assuming they are launched at North America) also puts them nowhere near Poland. Europe should be paying for this, if it's directed at the Russians (it isn't).
This is Russia posing. They want to believe they still 'own' the USSR's sphere of influence.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Oh cool, we are getting our old, trusted, loved boogieman back! Just in time for the Terrist Mooslim to be retired as the archetype bad guy. The Powers That Be must have realized it was safer working with Russia to keep the citizens in fear. The Taliban approach was cheaper, but was much harder to manage. Russia will cost more, but is more predictable.
So hopefully we'll start getting some good old school Megadeth songs again! (Although the last one was pretty good...)
So we were told by CNN that bin-Laden was responsible something like 20 minutes after the 2nd plane hit. I was watching the newscast on CNN when they mentioned once that a Special Forces team working in Afghanistan had phoned home saying they had bin-Laden in view, and should we throw rocks at him until you can get a battalion of Rangers over here to arrest him? The SF team was pulled back and set 200 miles away to start training the 'Northern Alliance'. (Truth be told, they were an 'alliance' only in that all groups involved hated the Taliban for controlling the capital.) Keep in mind also that the situation in 2001 in Afghanistan was simular to 1970 Cambodia. The royal family/Taliban held the capital and maybe a stone's throw past city limits, the Khmer Rouge/everybody else controlled everything else. We asked the Taliban to turn over bin-Laden and they said 'We can't do it'. Not 'We won't do it', 'We can't do it.' As in, there was no way they could send troops 350 miles away into enemy territory and reasonably expect them to come back mission accomplished. Just wasn't gonna happen, and having been in this situation since the Soviets left, they knew it.
Add to that, one of the Russians' big plan in the 80's was to build a pipeline across Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean to pipe oil from Siberia. For one thing, the weather was better than in Arkangelsk (for obvious reasons [the Chinese], they didn't want to put any pipeline further south) if they went for an internal pipeline to the Pacific coast. And have you experienced weather in the north Pacific? It seriously sucks in the winter! So what happens after the 'unification' (yeah, right) of Afghanistan? The Russians sign a deal to build that pipeline as soon as people stop shooting at each other. (Like that'll happen any time soon!)
I'll not go into how 'al-Qaeda' really started (Hint: Think FBI probe of the 1998 WTC bomb attempt and the RICO Act.) and the fact that power-wise, bin-Laden was pretty much out of the loop. The only thing going for him in 2001 was his checks stopped bouncing for a change.
So Saddam threatened to kill Bush Sr. Take it in context. In the 80's, the Iraqis were fighting the Iranians, and the US was supplying the Iraqis. They were our 'good guys', until the US pulled the plug on the cash and closed up the toybox. The war pretty much petered out after that. Of course Saddam was pissed, he was looking forward to adding Iran to Iraq, make it one big Persian state, and the US just welshed on the deal. The US has never been for Arab unity, it threatens Israel. We like Arab oil and Israeli sovereignty. Walking the razor's edge is a bitch.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
See, that's the problem. Russian missiles are set to travel over the North Pole, not over Europe. This system would only defend against missiles targeting Europe, and even then its debatable.
I resisted commenting in this article but you kind of forced me to. ;)
Anti-ballistic missiles are most effective when intercepting ICBMs on liftoff. Surrounding Russia with an ABM system would cripple Russia's missile launching regardless of intended direction of flight.
Honestly, I am shocked at the military intentions in Eastern Europe by America. The only legitimate reason for such a system is to make an invasion "easier". I understand that eventually, America wants to take over the world. No problem. Should America be doing such things NOW though?
If the system is to be used for what it is claimed it will be used for, then America should not do it. It costs way too much and provides no substantial benefit.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
>Another way of thinking about it: Would you be fine with $EVIL_EMPIRE deploying missile defense in Cuba, Mexico, and Canada?
Absofragginlutely!
If they are non-nuclear anti-missle defense than put those things **everywhere** as far as I am concerned. The less capability ANY country has for successfully launching a nuclear ICBM the better ! That goes for Russia, China, the freaking U S of A and everyone else.
No nukes is good nukes.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
The treaty was signed with a nation that no longer exists. There is no USSR. The Russian Federation doesn't inherit everything from the USSR any more than any of the other former members do. That Russia were the big oppressors within the USSR is of no consequence.
It is an interesting case in international law and I'm certainly not claiming it is 100% cut and dried but that being the case neither you nor Russia can say it is cut and dried that they automatically inherit any treaties the US signed with the USSR. Also since there is no international supreme court with final jurisdiction, the interpretation comes down to the nations. The US's lawyers looked over the law and said "The US is not bound by this treaty, it stopped existing when the USSR did."
Staff, yeah, maybe even their top advisors, but that doesn't stop an idiot that looks good on TV from getting elected. El Presidente is pretty much a meat puppet position these days with half a dozen hands up his ass fighting for control. As long as he knows when to smile for the cameras and parrot the Party line, he's golden.
Of course, that doesn't stop the staffers from having agendas of their own, and in their position, they have the power and influence to 'make it so'.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Good for them. Doesn't mean anybody else's obligations to the USSR outlived it.
Last I looked the Warsaw pact is no longer required to defend Russia.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
The catch is that then the US wouldn't be able to bomb whoever they want.
And Bush Jr.
The more I look at American politics, the more I'm convinced the GOP deliberately threw the 2008 election in order guarantee GOP control for another generation. Gods help us if we fall for that, and Gods give us some real candidates someday for a change.
Not hoping for much, am I?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Russia is a pretty cool guy. He stands up to the U.S. and doesn't afraid of anyone.
Now we're going to fight over defensive weapons? The simple answer is to sell Russia some of the defensive missiles so they will not feel threatened by them. Yes they'll get our technology but at least they paid for it. If we don't sell it they'll steal it anyway.
To be fair, the attack on Afghanistan had nothing to do with WMDs.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
For almost 50 years we lived under threat of instant vaporization. Both NATO and Soviets assumed that opponent army reinforcements will be stopped at Vistula line by tactical nuclear strike. Revealed war plans assumed that two million Poles will die in such strike and most parts of central Poland will become useless, radioactive wasteland for a number of years. Here in Poland we were trained how to survive nearby nuclear strike on a regular basis.
Things changed in 1990, when Cold War was finally over. Everyone became a friend. Some we liked some more [Americans] than others [Russians] for obvious reasons but it didn't really matter much.
Now, after 20 years of relative safety some psychotic US leader came here and started messing around with their 'anti-missile' shit. Arms race is back. Let assume that they'll install a system that will intercept 50% of russian missiles. Rational response I would expect from Russian is to have, say, twice as many nuclear tipped missiles they have now. I know this, Russians know this. Psychotic US politicians know this as well. So we have to live once again under threat of (instant) vaporization just because some dysfunctional psychopaths who happen to have too much power in their hands decided to pursue their geopolitical games. Having seen how these games have played out in, say, Middle East I'm really scared. Various "developments" since 2001 made me confident that United States will spark 3-rd world war sooner or later. I was hoping that in all the mess between US, Russia, China and Middle East - Poland will become a kind of place everyone forgot about, so we'll be relatively safe. Now I'm losing that hope - some whilte collar fucks along with our local puppet government placed us back into spotlight.
My message to US politicians and millitary: get the fuck out of here NOW. Take your anti-ballistic toys with you and shove them deep into your ass. You killed millions of people in the Middle East, destroyed so many countries. We don't want you to pursue the same psychotic games in Poland.
Regards,
Citizen od Poland.
If the US has N interceptors gaurding New York City all Russia has to do is launch N+1 missiles at it
N=0
Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes. Protecting those with a missile defense system
This doesn't.
c) I am no pronounced military strategist, but opening many fronts (as the US is doing in the present era) comes with benefits as well as costs: there is NO WAY today's superpowers can tackle conflicts like the ones the US is maintaining, and at the SAME time take on skirmishes with another superpower: the Russians are well aware of this, and they know that they absolutely can vaporize the array and get away with it- and they are letting you know that they will do it. Remember that China is also a superpower, and good luck getting them on the table and heaving them your way while engaged in tens of other conflicts, especially in a decade or so when their orbital, ICBM, naval and electronic warfare capabilities will be much more enhanced in comparison with the present day.
It shows that you aren't a military strategist. First of, you need to consider that this site and others are being built with the permission and at the request of the nations which they are being built in (Poland, Czechslovakia). These nations are also members of the NATO alliance. For Russian to attack these installations, even if they are US operated, would require that they violate the sovereignty and air space of the host nations. Such an aggression can, and probably would, lead to NATO forces declaring war against Russia. While the US may be stretched and Russia may be able to fend off US aggression in a war because of that, the military forces of other NATO nations are not so stretched and are not an easy match for Russia.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
OK, so you're playing the uninformed troll. Fine.
... that had to end.
Afghanistan? It was an attack against the Taliban, who were running (most) of that country at the point of a sword, financed from elsewhere. They (the Taliban) deliberately harbored the group that planned and executed many mass-murder attacks against western targets, including killing hundreds at embassies in Africa, before finally killing thousands in 9/11. The Taliban were given weeks to give up the people directly behind those attacks, and of course they refused. The Taliban was thus removed from power, and we continue to have to use force to prevent their insurgency from regaining power in that country. Of course, you knew all of that.
Iraq? Since it sounds like you're probably still in junior high school, you probably don't remember the part where Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and a large global alliance formed to push his troops back into Iraq, and force him to agree to changing his ways. In short, he never did. He met essentially none of the commitments he made while retreating, continued to attack patroling aircraft, murdered tens of thousands of its own people using WMDs, and did things like use UN food aid money to rebuild military structures, buy missile parts from North Korea, and buy time to obfuscate the disposition of the huge stockpiles of VX gas observed by the UN. Following the attacks on the Taliban, Saddam attempted to boost his regional image with the local Islamists by doing things like televising his cash payments to the families of suicide bombers that attacked in Israel, and so on.
We took down his regime because it never met a single promise made as it withdrew from Kuwait, and it continued to attack, target, murder, and steal from everyone around it. His thug regime's presence in a region much more on edge following the Taliban's deliberate support for attacks against the west and against other regional people and governments that they considered insufficiently hostile to the west
Also, would you consider a missile launch silo as an offensive or defensive system?
It depends on the missile you put in it. And we're offering the Russians unfettered access to see and monitor the completely defensive nature of the systems in question. Of course, you know that, and you're playing dumb in hopes of scoring points with other uninformed people.
How can you be stupid is beyond me.
It's apparent that a lot of things are beyond you.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Having actually researched the treaty in question many years ago, let me clarify a few things. The treaty has an out clause. No penalties. Just give due notice, wait a year, and the treaty is void. Nearly every apartment lease is tougher to get out of.
It also permits a limited ABM system. Both sides deployed them.
The treaty had limitations on radar deployment that were obsolete. Every wonder why we don't have a centralized radar system for commercial aircraft? Because we weren't allowed to build one. Inertial means now we're stuck with crap.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I don't know where you get the idea that the US keeps it's "first strike" nukes in Europe.
The US long ago (20+ years) removed the IRBM and GLCM from Europe, as part of IRNFT in 1988. Since then, the US nuclear presence in Europe has been limited to gravity bombs (which, most certainly, AREN'T first strike weapons). And, we're not even sure that the US still keeps those bombs active, as the US firmly refuses to "confirm or deny" their presence.
The US's current first-strike capable weapons are the Trident II D5 missiles on the Ohio class subs, and the Minuteman III ICBMs in the central US. Neither of which are anywhere near Europe or the proposed missile defense system.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
When you're facing fanatics that want to die killing you so that they have an automajix ticket punch to paradise, don't project your logical Western mores on them. Unfortunately, the best way to deal with them is to give them what they want but on their turf as to not sully yours.
This is the best example of why we need a Ronaldus Magnus as POTUS rather than a Zer0bama. What a stark contrast as compared to 'TEAR THIS WALL DOWN"!
Such an aggression can, and probably would, lead to NATO forces declaring war against Russia.
Extremely very unlikely. It would lead to a lot of people saying very pointed things in very loud voices, but Europe isn't going to declare war on Russia over a single airstrike.
the military forces of other NATO nations are not so stretched and are not an easy match for Russia
Were Russia attempting to invade, I'd agree completely. However, bear in mind how difficult France and England found it to maintain air superiority over.. Libya. Two of the largest defence budgets in Europe and we struggled to pacify a country with four working aircraft?
It shows that you aren't a military strategist.
If they were going to expend the majority of their arsenal, they'd have little bargaining power, ever again.
...because there'd be nobody left to bargain with.
Preemptive strikes and preemptive peace prizes
The vast majority of US nuclear weapons left Europe a LONG time ago (most of the western European countries demanded their removal in the 80's). The START and SALT treaties removed the vast majority of weapons that could be used for first strike as well.
The Russian concern that I haven't seen posted yet is that even if the US ABM system is a piece of shit now, in 10 years it could advance to the point that it was capable of shooting down Russian Nukes during boost (the only time they are moving slow enough to hit). As others have pointed out (and the principle reason for the ABM treaty) is that ABM can eliminate MAD and make someone think they can initiate first strike without fear of retaliation.
It's no coincidence that the Chinese have also spoken out about ABM, and it's also the reason we had a treaty baring it, it creates an unstable situation where first strike could become an option. And lets make one thing clear, the offers of appeasement each side have made came with conditions that have not been revealed. Was the Russian offer of Radar access and Monitors conditional on them having veto rights on use of the system? Was the US offer of Russian participation contingent on no technology transfer and only observer status (IMO an observer is pretty worthless). The key here is we as the public have no idea what conditions each side is proposing that is making the other refuse, none of the details are public and frankly it's very possible that both sides are being assholes.
IMO ABM shouldn't be undertaken without Russian AND Chinese participation. This should be a worldwide system that can shoot down rogue state Nukes given the reality of proliferation. I understand US fears about tech transfer but we can't build this damn thing on our own or the other guys are going to be afraid it's a first strike weapon or will become one in time. Everyone's being a fucktard on this.
Th New York was nearly destroyed by a bunch of shepherds with box-cutters.
Nuclear devices were miniaturized into small suitcase still in 80s. This is what really dangerous.
Why spend energy and money on past threats. II would suggest instead to cooperate on co-development. It is impossible to have the empire of prosperity in the ocean of misery.
Instead of spending billions on petty quarrel MCCain and Putin could assist in earnest people in hot dry parts.
"Defensive system" is the same definition used by
russians during cuba crisis regarding the nuclear warheads
ready to be lanched against continental US.
The americans will find a way to be prepared to pre-emptively address the pre-emptive attacks pre-emptively.
The US has a great arsenal of pre-emptivelies, and history shows they know how to use them. Before they use them. Because they are pre-emptivelies.
Canadians are also North Americans. _
But they don't need no shields. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police can catch those pesky missiles. With their horses.
So, unless they're going to risk an all-out ground assault, or try to bomb this with conventional aircraft, I think they're SOL
According to some earlier boasts, Tu-160 is stealthy enough to penetrate the typical American SAM defenses before being detected. Perhaps we'll find out if that is true.
The Mayans may have been right after all.. No matter what the outcome, this cant end well. Now that the threats have been made someone really big has to back down, or start a war.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What Russia is doing right now is raising on pocket 2s. They're posturing, nothing more, and trying to get the US to back down
And if we don't, they will have to look stupid or start a war. If we back down, we have lost any credibility and bargaining power we had left.
With stakes like this, no one wins.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The ABM Treaty was signed between with the USSR - not Russia. The USSR no longer exists.
Russia is a legal successor to the USSR - recognized as such by UN - in most foreign matters, including e.g. debts and other financial obligations, and, yes, treaties.
That said, it doesn't matter. ABM was not a perpetual treaty, either side could always withdraw. The point is that the treaty existed for a purpose, and both US and USSR agreed that it was an important purpose. Then, all of a sudden, US withdraws. Of course this is not going to garner any goodwill in Russia.
is saber rattling for power. Creating fear among the populace that he screwed over.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Well then Stalin better tell them to stop then.. of wait. How exactly, is Stalin part of this now?
"appear more expansionist, more hard-core, just to remain in a position of power *within* the Soviet Union."
this is actually happening, and it has been happening for a long time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What about their subs? Their subs are ancient compared to the what the US possesses
American Ohio class ICBM subs were designed in 1970s. Soviet Delta class ICBM subs were designed... in 1970s.
Yeah, they might be able to snap fire a couple long range ICBMs from their missile subs
You do realize that Russia has as many active nuclear subs with ICBMs as U.S., right? And that the missiles themselves are comparable as well? Granted, American subs carry 24 missiles, while Russian ones carry 16. Still way too many, though, when you account for 3-8 warheads per missile.
The US, on several occasions, has asked to partner with the Russians to combat missiles from Iran and North Korea, as well as other rogue nations. That they refuse to
Can you give some references for "they refuse to"?
No dear Reaganite, you're wrong:
NATO can call the system whatever it wants, but the Russians have no obligation to take the claims at face value (that would be stupid). Recent history has shown that the US, given a Presidential cycle or two, is capable of breaking any of its promises and treaties and arbitrarily redefining terms of conflict in Orwellian fashion in the pursuit of global domination.
Despite attempts at negotiations, the Russians were firmly excluded from participating in the very "defense" system that would be sitting near their border. Once a system is installed there, virtually anything can be done with it (railguns, lasers, or even just reprogrammed or upgraded missiles) and all sides know that nuclear missiles are much more vulnerable during ascent which is when an Eastern Europe-based system is in an ideal position to strike. As such, it is a threat to MAD.
A trade union... Look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union)
Well then Stalin better tell them to stop then.. of wait. How exactly, is Stalin part of this now?
I mean, it's a very old part of their policy, and it comes from the most extreme and hostile asshole of all assholes in USSR government. Outdoing Stalin is not exactly on anyone's agenda there.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Are you an idiot? Treaties with USSR are the origin of many, many limitations on both US and Russia's military policies. If US declared them all invalid or broken all of them, Russia would have to do many seriously unpleasant things for US, so if it was the case, they would have to re-sign them just to keep things sane. The whole point is that US didn't try to do any of that except suddenly decided to break one such treaty.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Just 50 nukes could kick up enough dust that crops would not get enough sunshine for at least 7 years
Didn't we explode hundreds of nuclear test weapons all over the world? I think the local effects of nuclear war would be horrific, but the planet as a whole wouldn't even bat an eye and would be back to normal in a few decades. Nuclear winter was cold war FUD designed to keep us (and the USSR) from actually going through with the crazy. There is a lot of criticism and debate over the accuracy of the nuclear winter hypothesis.
It's OK, Obama will have "more flexibility" after the election to deal with Missile defense. World War III anyone?
Over 600 comments and no Soviet Russia jokes yet? This must not be Slashdot...
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
In essence what Russia is saying is that they will attack the West if the West makes any attempt to protect itself from attack. Spoken like a coward.
My understanding is that Russia could trivially overwhelm anything but a completely sky-saturating missile defence, which one defence base isn't. So why the hysterics from the Russians, this isn't useful against anything but rogue states. I'd be more understanding if there were a string of hundreds of them being built.
The missile defense shield has exactly one purpose: mopping up as much as possible of any retalliatory strikes with whatever is left of the Russian missiles after a successful first strike on them.
The nuclear arsenal is of limited political value as it is right now, because any threat is balanced with an equivalent counter threat from their arsenal. When you change the equation in a way that nukes could be used in a first strike with strongly limited repercussions, its threat once again gains you political leverage.
Rogue states are not the target here. Their precious few nukes are extremely valuable to them in an unexploded form, but lose all of their value once exploded. They don't have ICBMs and a satelite guidance network, and if a rogue organisation did plan a nuclear attack, they use a more fail safe and accurate delivery system such as a truck, airplane or ship.
Are you illiterate?? I'm so tired of typing it that I'm just going to copy and paste now. Have someone read this to you:
Next, you mention America's submarine and bomber force. You do realize that Russians have those too, right? While they do not have stealth bombers, their bomber force is more than adequate and their submarine force is either second to the US only or second to none.
This system is no threat to MAD.
And the Russians were invited to inspect the system and even take part, but refused.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Someone decided to bloody the Seppo's noses.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
The Country that couldn't hold their own lil Soviet Empire together? Meh...
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
We respect those because they still make geopolitical sense. Answer me. Is Poland still required to defend Russia if Russia is attacked? Is Georgia? Is Germany now bound by the treaties signed by E. Germany? Many other USSR treaties are now invalid.
Are you an idiot?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Russia is a legal successor to the USSR - recognized as such by UN -
It makes SO much sense to grant a multi-national conglomerate sovereignty over the Constitution. Your ignorance just made me laugh.
The UN recognition mattered only insofar as any international treaties signed by USSR remained binding on Russia, and also in that Russia retained Soviet seat on the Security Council.
US did not have to recognize the succession just because the UN did so. But US did recognize said transfer by acknowledging that all Soviet debts and other financial obligations were transferred to Russia - you can't recognize the transfer of a duty implying succession without recognizing succession itself.
Yes but we did it with a goal of NOT putting that much dirt in the air. Specifically designed detonations of weapons would most certainly have the ability to seriously screw up everyone.
Read a little about the detonation scenarios for nuclear war and it becomes clear, they understand that if the goal is to deny a very big place. Buried weapons can work very well. Typically such scenarios are under the label of 'scorched earth tactics' and never considered useful. Its the reason they never went ahead with any of the 'nukes to make big holes for civil engineering' type projects. If Russia wanted to wrap the globe in nuclear winter. It has the capacity to do so without a single rocket.
Nuclear scorched earth tactics can scale up in a big way and were all cactus if anyone tried them. How about gently melting a few nukes down under the Antarctic ice. Note the word melt, not drill, melting can be rather quiet and unlikely to be noticed seismically. Shift the entire west antarctic ice shelf perhaps? even part of it would work well given estimates of its likely runaway melting behavior. That would be an approximate 3m sea level rise. Several countries gone, and potential deniability if they wanted to be REAL dicks about how they played the game. It sounds like a stupid Bond movie plot, who would believe they actually did it?
Not to mention the good old fashioned bury the nukes where they will kick up the most dirt, plan.
XML - A clever joke would be here if
It is not a defensive system, not to the Russians anyway. It's true enough that it could be used defensively against Iran and North Korea, but it has an offensive role in an all out war against Russia. It breaks MAD, and while MAD is a ridiculously suicidal way to run a planet, it did manage to get us through the cold war pretty well.
I find this whole situation remarkably ironic, considering the US was encouraging Russia to abandon ballistic missile defense back in the 60s, to which they famously replied:
"Defense is moral, offense is immoral", Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin, 1967
Now the roles are reversed, and it is the Russians who are trying to get ABM banned. :)
Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes. Protecting those with a missile defense system leaves Russia at a huge disadvantage in any nuke war
Why on earth would you need to protect "first strike nukes" in the event of a nuclear war? If you do mount a first strike those missiles will already be in the air long before Russia knows an attack is even underway.
The only thing missile defense would do is protect other targets in Europe from retaliation, or block a Russian first strike. I will tend to agree that the former does tend to reduce the protection afforded by MAD. However, it has nothing to do with protecting "first strike nukes." The whole point of mounting a first strike is that it completely eliminates the possibility of the enemy hitting your nuclear forces while they're still on the ground at their most vulnerable.
I'm not sure that ABM will ever reach a point where it will be a realistic way to deal with MAD. The nature of the problem favors offense greatly. ABM does have the power to force your opponent to spend a great deal of money though (at a cost of your own expenditure of far more money - but with their economies in the state they are in the US can probably afford to waste $100 to get the Russians to waste $2). I suspect the real issue here is pride in any case...
lrn to type...please. This is the most painful thing to read I have seen in a long time. So many shortenings (are we using SMS or Twitter?) and horrible misspellings I can't even get through the first sentence. When your spelling and typing is so horrible, no one wants to read your dribble.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?