Russia

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 15

2008-11-09 06:11:24

#176

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6437|'Murka

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
oh, c'mon dude, isn't it obvious? Russia hasn't built a successful ABM system.
of course, Russia just prefer not to be messing with those who might be crazy enough to launch missiles at them to spending tax money on the development of ineffective ABM systems.
seriously, removing their dick from ME ass would be for US and its NATO allies a much better way of protecting themselves from "terrorists", imho.

I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with the efficacy of the ABM system or Russia's knee-jerk response to it.

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The point you keep missing is that these are postured to defend against MRBMs primarily. NOT...I repeat NOT...MIRV-equipped ICBMs of Russian manufacture.
tbqh, i don't remebmer when we established that as a fact. now, i'm not accusing you of lying, because that would render this discussion pointless, just that you aren't being told everything.

Perhaps you should research the topic, then. It's clear you haven't done that yet...but you seem to feel you've been "told everything".

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
we are going in circles. i already said that INTENTIONS change every day, while POSSIBILITIES remain - and it's around those national security is built.
So, by your logic, there's no problem with NATO installing these systems, since there's the POSSIBILITY that someone from the ME or Russia will launch a missile at them.
no problem whatsoever, just don't bitch when in response to that Russia deploy more missiles. as i said, it's bloody Cold War again. NATO didn't want that? - oops, it's done already. next time you decide to do something like this consider the consequences. or come see us - maybe we can work something out?

Well, considering Russia had been playing nice with the rest of the world up until recently, maybe NATO thought that Russia would take a rational view and not attempt to use the installation of a purely defensive capability not focused on Russia as an excuse to pressure former Warsaw Pact states back into the fold.

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Justification for Russia being pissed (from a national security perspective) is even shakier than the justification for the MRBM threat imposed by Iran against Europe.
well, i honestly don't know which side in this incident looks more ridiculous.

I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with "Russia".

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Defensive systems do not pose a threat to anyone who doesn't intend to attack.
"intentions and possibilities"

So you're saying Russia intends to attack simply because they have the capability to do so?

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:

round and around again... see "intentions and possibilities".
It's not a round and round. You simply refuse to see the nonsensical nature of the Russian position. There is no threat posed to Russia by these systems, just as there is no threat posed to you by your neighbor's alarm system on their house. Yet you choose to point a gun at your neighbors because you don't like them for completely unrelated reasons, justifying your actions by the "threatening" alarm system they installed.
you seem to misunderstand me here (i blame my poor english again). let me make myself more clear:
i DON'T defend Russia position in this - it's undoubtedly politics, national security being brought in as an excuse mostly.
however: it was a RESPONSE to equally idiotic move by NATO, who decided that "terrorists" were of enough threat to their EU members to justify jeopardizing the balance in the region by deploying those ABM systems.
EVERYTHING is politics in this incedent, BOTH sides are using their national security as an excuse.
so, unlimately, the only thing you said i'm speaking against (missile defense systems and their capabilities not counted) is that Russia response to those installations in Poland and CR was completely uncalled-for.

And again...the part you seem to misunderstand is that the ABM system being installed in Poland and the CR does not alter the balance in Europe one iota. It does nothing to impact Russia's ability to hold targets in Europe at risk. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2008-11-09 06:16:08

#177

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6437|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:
I see what you're saying here, but I have a few counter points that suggest that Poland were pressured into it, at least a bit (we're not talking brutal coercion like the Russians might use here by any means) - I'm not just making it up out of nothing. You say there is no stick or carrot, but there most certainly is a carrot - used to sell the deal to the Polish Parliament. That carrot is the Patriot missile system - which was not to be used in the EIS (though I am well aware that PAC-3 Patriot missiles play an important role in many US ABM systems - they were not intended for this role and the US was reluctant to supply them).

After initially rejecting the deal, Poland asked for (financial and technical) help in bolstering their air defence systems and were initially turned down for that. Suddenly Poland have been offered Patriot missiles, ideal for air defence, and have also signed up to the deal. A massive upgrade to air defence systems that was not included in the initial deal and was specifically asked for by the Polish, certainly seems like a carrot to me.

Keep in mind that Poland and the CR also have an obligation to bring their air defense and other military capabilities up to NATO standards in order to maintain membership. The upgrade to their air defenses is part of that...and I believe Poland is buying old German Patriot systems as the Germans upgrade to PAC-3.

It may seem like a carrot that is tied to the ABM deal, but it's not. It's related to their NATO responsibilities, not to the ABM deal.

2008-11-09 06:20:59

#178

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6437|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Again, this is like pointing a gun at your neighbor's house because they installed an alarm system. It's nonsensical.
No, its more like your neighbour who is pointing a gun at you buying a bullet-proof vest.
It just encourages you to buy a bigger gun, or a gun which fires more bullets, or a case of armour piercing bullets.
Each side is just as screwed as when they started so it doesn't achieve a whole lot.

It's absolutely NOT like that in any way.

It's more (to use the kevlar vest analogy), like your neighbor bought a kevlar vest to protect themselves from drive-bys and you go out and buy armor-piercing rounds, then point your gun (loaded with said rounds) at your neighbor because you felt "threatened" by their kevlar vest.

2008-11-09 08:59:10

#179

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6607|SE London

FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
I see what you're saying here, but I have a few counter points that suggest that Poland were pressured into it, at least a bit (we're not talking brutal coercion like the Russians might use here by any means) - I'm not just making it up out of nothing. You say there is no stick or carrot, but there most certainly is a carrot - used to sell the deal to the Polish Parliament. That carrot is the Patriot missile system - which was not to be used in the EIS (though I am well aware that PAC-3 Patriot missiles play an important role in many US ABM systems - they were not intended for this role and the US was reluctant to supply them).

After initially rejecting the deal, Poland asked for (financial and technical) help in bolstering their air defence systems and were initially turned down for that. Suddenly Poland have been offered Patriot missiles, ideal for air defence, and have also signed up to the deal. A massive upgrade to air defence systems that was not included in the initial deal and was specifically asked for by the Polish, certainly seems like a carrot to me.
Keep in mind that Poland and the CR also have an obligation to bring their air defense and other military capabilities up to NATO standards in order to maintain membership. The upgrade to their air defenses is part of that...and I believe Poland is buying old German Patriot systems as the Germans upgrade to PAC-3.

It may seem like a carrot that is tied to the ABM deal, but it's not. It's related to their NATO responsibilities, not to the ABM deal.

It certainly does seem that way and I remain unconvinced that it is not. The Polish rejected the ABM deal, then asked for money and missile defence, then were given Patriots, then they signed up to the ABM deal. Coincidence?

2008-11-09 09:25:41

#180

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6437|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
I see what you're saying here, but I have a few counter points that suggest that Poland were pressured into it, at least a bit (we're not talking brutal coercion like the Russians might use here by any means) - I'm not just making it up out of nothing. You say there is no stick or carrot, but there most certainly is a carrot - used to sell the deal to the Polish Parliament. That carrot is the Patriot missile system - which was not to be used in the EIS (though I am well aware that PAC-3 Patriot missiles play an important role in many US ABM systems - they were not intended for this role and the US was reluctant to supply them).

After initially rejecting the deal, Poland asked for (financial and technical) help in bolstering their air defence systems and were initially turned down for that. Suddenly Poland have been offered Patriot missiles, ideal for air defence, and have also signed up to the deal. A massive upgrade to air defence systems that was not included in the initial deal and was specifically asked for by the Polish, certainly seems like a carrot to me.
Keep in mind that Poland and the CR also have an obligation to bring their air defense and other military capabilities up to NATO standards in order to maintain membership. The upgrade to their air defenses is part of that...and I believe Poland is buying old German Patriot systems as the Germans upgrade to PAC-3.

It may seem like a carrot that is tied to the ABM deal, but it's not. It's related to their NATO responsibilities, not to the ABM deal.
It certainly does seem that way and I remain unconvinced that it is not. The Polish rejected the ABM deal, then asked for money and missile defence, then were given Patriots, then they signed up to the ABM deal. Coincidence?

If that were the case, who's to say it wasn't just them pressing for a deal they wanted? It's called negotiation and it happens everywhere, all the time. But I guess when the US is involved it's "coercion".

2008-11-10 03:19:54

#181

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6801|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
oh, c'mon dude, isn't it obvious? Russia hasn't built a successful ABM system.
of course, Russia just prefer not to be messing with those who might be crazy enough to launch missiles at them to spending tax money on the development of ineffective ABM systems.
seriously, removing their dick from ME ass would be for US and its NATO allies a much better way of protecting themselves from "terrorists", imho.
I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with the efficacy of the ABM system or Russia's knee-jerk response to it.

that's right, but you brought it up and i simply answered. as the matter of a fact, Russia did build and tested their own system, but then they decided that it had very bad efficiency/cost ratio to be worth the hassle of developing further. but really, you don't actually think that those who build missiles that supposed to be countered by ABM systems don't know of their capabilities, do you?

FEOS wrote:
Perhaps you should research the topic, then. It's clear you haven't done that yet...but you seem to feel you've been "told everything".

FEOS wrote:
...the part you seem to misunderstand is that the ABM system being installed in Poland and the CR does not alter the balance in Europe one iota.

and what will i learn? the exact details on US ABM systems are undoubtedly all in national secret category, so whatever i'd be able to gather from the sources awailable to the public is exactly that - what they want to be available to the public. NOBODY is being told everything.
what's left for me? - i've asked people who might actually be knowledgable in this stuff, watched the news, read your opinion too, btw.

so, let's see what's actually availabe to me:

- US is deployng somekinda ABM systems next to Russia's borders.
- they insist that those are not ment to be used against Russia.
- i'm told that those systems are only able to intercept MRBMs bound for EU.

on the other hand:
- Russia deploys more missiles in response.
- people involved with building of ballistic missiles tell me that most of US boasts about capabilities of their ABM systems of intercetping incoming warheads are bluff.
- they also tell me, that if systems in question were ment to intercept russian ICBMs in boost phase - the only effective way of countering those - Poland would actually be one of better places to deploy them.

now, what do i conclude from all this? let's pretend that i trust you unconditionally on everything you said in this thread about those particular ABM systems in Poland, then it'll be this:
a precedent is being broken of NATO installing ABM systems next to Russian borders. i don't fucking care what they say - and i just lol'ed at the "terrorist treat" argument - because national security implies assuming the worst, otherwise, i'm sorry to mention this, but 9/11-like stuff is bound to happen to you. so, as those systems can be used to shot certain missiles down, i don't see any problem with Russia deployng more of said missiles in response. who knows, maybe tomorrow they decide it's time to deploy more potent ABM systems? so letting them know in advance what would be Russia's response to stuff like that looks perfectly justified to me, and it doesn't matter if what's being told to me about those systems and their capabilities is true or not.

now, tell me - where i'm wrong in my conclusions?

FEOS wrote:
Well, considering Russia had been playing nice with the rest of the world up until recently, maybe NATO thought that Russia would take a rational view and not attempt to use the installation of a purely defensive capability not focused on Russia as an excuse to pressure former Warsaw Pact states back into the fold.

sorry, "life's a bitch and then you die". and i'm sure should a similar opportunity to spread their influence open for US they'd have behaved this way too.

FEOS wrote:
So you're saying Russia intends to attack simply because they have the capability to do so?

let's say Russia intends to maintain their capability to do so.

btw, i haven't seen the following simple question asked in this thread: why all the bitching if all NATO intended to accomplish with those installations is protection of their EU members from MRBMs? because you've got them protected now, right? from ME or Russia - does it really matter?

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2008-11-10 03:26:45

#182

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6132|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Well, considering Russia had been playing nice with the rest of the world up until recently

Basically until the US started deploying ABM systems on the Russian border.
AMIRITE?

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2008-11-10 03:43:56

#183

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6437|'Murka

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:

of course, Russia just prefer not to be messing with those who might be crazy enough to launch missiles at them to spending tax money on the development of ineffective ABM systems.
seriously, removing their dick from ME ass would be for US and its NATO allies a much better way of protecting themselves from "terrorists", imho.
I don't disagree, but that has nothing to do with the efficacy of the ABM system or Russia's knee-jerk response to it.
that's right, but you brought it up and i simply answered. as the matter of a fact, Russia did build and tested their own system, but then they decided that it had very bad efficiency/cost ratio to be worth the hassle of developing further. but really, you don't actually think that those who build missiles that supposed to be countered by ABM systems don't know of their capabilities, do you?

Not always. Perhaps the Russians felt that their ABM was infeasible because they hadn't solved that particular problem, where the US has. So to them, it would appear impossible...but test results show otherwise.

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Perhaps you should research the topic, then. It's clear you haven't done that yet...but you seem to feel you've been "told everything".
FEOS wrote:
...the part you seem to misunderstand is that the ABM system being installed in Poland and the CR does not alter the balance in Europe one iota.
and what will i learn? the exact details on US ABM systems are undoubtedly all in national secret category, so whatever i'd be able to gather from the sources awailable to the public is exactly that - what they want to be available to the public. NOBODY is being told everything.
what's left for me? - i've asked people who might actually be knowledgable in this stuff, watched the news, read your opinion too, btw.

Strange that you come to that conclusion based on open-source reports, when the open-source reports say the exact opposite of your conclusion. Keep reading.

Shahter wrote:
so, let's see what's actually availabe to me:

- US is deployng somekinda ABM systems next to Russia's borders.
- they insist that those are not ment to be used against Russia.
- i'm told that those systems are only able to intercept MRBMs bound for EU.

on the other hand:
- Russia deploys more missiles in response.
- people involved with building of ballistic missiles tell me that most of US boasts about capabilities of their ABM systems of intercetping incoming warheads are bluff.
- they also tell me, that if systems in question were ment to intercept russian ICBMs in boost phase - the only effective way of countering those - Poland would actually be one of better places to deploy them.

Then clearly you haven't researched the ABM system...it doesn't go after missiles in their boost phase. A simple wikipedia search would've told you that...and it unhinges your entire argument. Even though I've told you the exact same thing multiple times. As for the "bluff": see above.

Shahter wrote:
now, what do i conclude from all this? let's pretend that i trust you unconditionally on everything you said in this thread about those particular ABM systems in Poland, then it'll be this:
a precedent is being broken of NATO installing ABM systems next to Russian borders. i don't fucking care what they say - and i just lol'ed at the "terrorist treat" argument - because national security implies assuming the worst, otherwise, i'm sorry to mention this, but 9/11-like stuff is bound to happen to you. so, as those systems can be used to shot certain missiles down, i don't see any problem with Russia deployng more of said missiles in response. who knows, maybe tomorrow they decide it's time to deploy more potent ABM systems? so letting them know in advance what would be Russia's response to stuff like that looks perfectly justified to me, and it doesn't matter if what's being told to me about those systems and their capabilities is true or not.

Once you tell me "you don't fucking care what they say" that tells me that you are closing your mind to the possibility...which obviates your entering argument where you "pretend" to trust unconditionally. Well, you just put in a condition, Sparky.

The problem here is that, if you "trust unconditionally" what has been said, then Russia has no reason whatsoever to deploy those missiles, as the ABMs pose no threat to Russia whatsoever. So why would they do it?

Shahter wrote:
now, tell me - where i'm wrong in my conclusions?

Let's see...they ignore facts and follow no consistent logic. How's that?

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Well, considering Russia had been playing nice with the rest of the world up until recently, maybe NATO thought that Russia would take a rational view and not attempt to use the installation of a purely defensive capability not focused on Russia as an excuse to pressure former Warsaw Pact states back into the fold.
sorry, "life's a bitch and then you die". and i'm sure should a similar opportunity to spread their influence open for US they'd have behaved this way too.

I seriously doubt it. Russia is being much more aggressive toward the US with their long range aviation intrusions of our ADIZ and naval maneuvers in the Caribbean with Venezuela. Do you hear the US bitching about that?

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
So you're saying Russia intends to attack simply because they have the capability to do so?
let's say Russia intends to maintain their capability to do so.

And Russia could just as easily maintain their capability to do so without deploying MRBMs to Poland's border in response to a non-threat.

Shahter wrote:
btw, i haven't seen the following simple question asked in this thread: why all the bitching if all NATO intended to accomplish with those installations is protection of their EU members from MRBMs? because you've got them protected now, right? from ME or Russia - does it really matter?

Because--up until recently--Russia had been behaving like they wanted to be a full-faith member of the Western world. But apparently all they want to do is go back to the "bad old days".

2008-11-10 03:45:30

#184

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6437|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Well, considering Russia had been playing nice with the rest of the world up until recently
Basically until the US started deploying ABM systems on the Russian border.
AMIRITE?

No. They started their jackassery before then.

But I fully realize that everything that goes wrong in the world is the fault of one of two countries in your mind, so why even bother.

2008-11-10 04:20:17

#185

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6132|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
No. They started their jackassery before then.

For example?

FEOS wrote:
I seriously doubt it. Russia is being much more aggressive toward the US with their long range aviation intrusions of our ADIZ and naval maneuvers in the Caribbean with Venezuela.

I'm pretty sure people are allowed to use international airspace, just as the US does.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2008-11-10 06:18:12

#186

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6801|Moscow, Russia

Shahter wrote:
don't trust everything you read on wikipedia

FEOS wrote:
I don't get my info off of wikipedia.

FEOS wrote:
clearly you haven't researched the ABM system...it doesn't go after missiles in their boost phase. A simple wikipedia search would've told you that...and it unhinges your entire argument.

FEOS wrote:
Not always. Perhaps the Russians felt that their ABM was infeasible because they hadn't solved that particular problem, where the US has. So to them, it would appear impossible...but test results show otherwise.

and those results that can be viewed where? are you telling me that i could read the stuff that's supposed to be US national secret on wikipedia?! o_O

seriously, let's stop this "everybody knows that - it's up on wikipedia!" nonsense, ok?

FEOS wrote:
Once you tell me "you don't fucking care what they say" that tells me that you are closing your mind to the possibility...

possibility that US might actually be telling truth re their intentions with those ABM istallations? absolutely, and as far as Russia's national security is conserned i MUST close my mind to that possibility. i only ment that i'd pretend to "trust unconditionally" in everything you said about the capabilities of those ABM systems, not NATO intentions with them.

FEOS wrote:
So why would they do it [deploy the missiles]?

i still see that as perfectly justified. remember - "assuming the worst".

FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
now, tell me - where i'm wrong in my conclusions?
Let's see...they ignore facts and follow no consistent logic. How's that?

a swing - and a miss. the only thing we can safely consider a fact so far is "US installed ABM systems next to Russian borders, Russia responded by deploying MRBMs in the region". the rest is "wikipedia" and stuff we aren't going to agree on like US ABM capabilities (but i was making my conclusions under the assumtion that everything you said re those was actually true, remember?).

FEOS wrote:
I seriously doubt it. Russia is being much more aggressive toward the US with their long range aviation intrusions of our ADIZ and naval maneuvers in the Caribbean with Venezuela. Do you hear the US bitching about that?

no. should i? but i'm sure Russia wouldn't mind if in response to them maneuvering with Venezuela and flying around US deployed some anti-naval and anti-air stuff.

FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
So you're saying Russia intends to attack simply because they have the capability to do so?
let's say Russia intends to maintain their capability to do so.
And Russia could just as easily maintain their capability to do so...

yeah, only to do so with MRBMs Russia would requite more of them because of new ABM installations in Poland. other than that - sure, regional balance wasn't altered one bit. oh, wait, Russia did exactly that - restore their capability to attack with MRBM's should that be required. so, what's your point again?

FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
btw, i haven't seen the following simple question asked in this thread: why all the bitching if all NATO intended to accomplish with those installations is protection of their EU members from MRBMs? because you've got them protected now, right? from ME or Russia - does it really matter?
Because--up until recently--Russia had been behaving like they wanted to be a full-faith member of the Western world.

if by "wanted to be a member of Western world" you ment "content with NATO doing whatever they fancied next to it's borders" then you definitely got the wrong impression.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2008-11-10 16:59:22

#187

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6437|'Murka

Shahter wrote:
and those results that can be viewed where? are you telling me that i could read the stuff that's supposed to be US national secret on wikipedia?! o_O

seriously, let's stop this "everybody knows that - it's up on wikipedia!" nonsense, ok?

While there are sources out there other than wikipedia, it's a good place to start...which clearly you haven't.

So, since you obviously aren't interested in examining the issue objectively, here's a link and some quotes from the wiki article:

NMD deployment is planned in three phases. The first phase is called Capability 1 (C1), and was originally designed to counter a limited threat from up to about five warheads with either simple or no countermeasures. More recently this phase has been upgraded to include the deployment of up to 100 interceptors and would be aimed at countering tens of warheads. This would require radar upgrades. Since North Korea is perceived to be the earliest missile threat, the interceptors and radar would be deployed in Alaska.

On 24 February 2005, the Missile Defense Agency, testing the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, successfully intercepted a mock enemy missile. This was the first test of an operationally configured RIM-161 Standard missile 3 (SM-3) interceptor and the fifth successful test intercept using this system. On 10 November 2005, the USS Lake Erie detected, tracked, and destroyed a mock two-stage ballistic missile within two minutes of the ballistic missile launch.[7]
On 1 September 2006, the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System was successfully tested. An interceptor was launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base to hit a target missile launched from Alaska, with ground support provided by a crew at Colorado Springs. This test was described by Missile Defense Agency director Lieutenant General Trey Obering as "about as close as we can come to an end-to-end test of our long-range missile defense system."[8] The target missile carried no decoys or other countermeasures.[9]

Go ahead and read the rest of the article while you're at it. This system is clearly a mid-course interceptor system. Therefore, all your boost-phase arguments are null and void, as this system is not capable of boost-phase interception.

Shahter wrote:
possibility that US might actually be telling truth re their intentions with those ABM istallations? absolutely, and as far as Russia's national security is conserned i MUST close my mind to that possibility. i only ment that i'd pretend to "trust unconditionally" in everything you said about the capabilities of those ABM systems, not NATO intentions with them.

What intentions could NATO have with a mid-course interception system...other than to intercept warheads that are heading for a NATO country? And you're saying that's a bad thing? And somehow threatening to Russia? Seriously?

Shahter wrote:
i still see that as perfectly justified. remember - "assuming the worst".

Assuming what, exactly? That the missiles will perform a function that they are incapable of performing? Paranoid much?

Shahter wrote:
a swing - and a miss. the only thing we can safely consider a fact so far is "US installed ABM systems next to Russian borders, Russia responded by deploying MRBMs in the region". the rest is "wikipedia" and stuff we aren't going to agree on like US ABM capabilities (but i was making my conclusions under the assumtion that everything you said re those was actually true, remember?).

Eh? You did no such thing. You think it's perfectly reasonable to respond to the deployment of a defensive system, not aimed at your country, by staging offensive missiles closer to the countries fielding said defensive systems. I just don't see how that is reasonable by any definition, based solely on the threat posed (which is NONE, btw).

Shahter wrote:
no. should i? but i'm sure Russia wouldn't mind if in response to them maneuvering with Venezuela and flying around US deployed some anti-naval and anti-air stuff.

Which is exactly the opposite of what's going on here. If Russia started deploying anti-naval and anti-air stuff and then the US started doing more naval maneuvers and air defense intrusions because of it...would that be OK? Because that's what Russia is doing in this case.

Shahter wrote:
if by "wanted to be a member of Western world" you ment "content with NATO doing whatever they fancied next to it's borders" then you definitely got the wrong impression.

I neither implied nor stated that. What I meant was generally behaving in a rational manner in its relations with Western countries. That has nothing to do with their contentment with NATO...even though they never had an issue with NATO after the USSR broke up. That is, until Vlady-boy started trying to rebuild the Soviet empire. Those former Warsaw Pact states making their own decisions--based on their own national interests and not Mother Russia's--just really pissed him off, didn't it?

2008-11-11 07:49:15

#188

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6801|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:
So, since you obviously aren't interested in examining the issue objectively

i'm not interested whatsoever in examining wikipedia or any such source of info, yes, because as i already told you everything that's available up there is what they want to be available. i have read that article before we started this argument, btw.

FEOS wrote:
This system is clearly a mid-course interceptor system. Therefore, all your boost-phase arguments are null and void, as this system is not capable of boost-phase interception.

go on and find me where i actually said or implied that those systems were capable of boost-phase interception, then we'll continue this.

FEOS wrote:
What intentions could NATO have with a mid-course interception system...other than to intercept warheads that are heading for a NATO country? And you're saying that's a bad thing? And somehow threatening to Russia? Seriously?

FEOS wrote:
Assuming what, exactly? That the missiles will perform a function that they are incapable of performing? Paranoid much?

assuming that one day Russia will need to actually use something that can be countered with those ABM systems, what else?. Russia intends to maintain their capability to attack or retaliate with any weapon they find sutable for the situation, be it MRBMs or BB guns, and that is perfectly ok in my book. i don't see any problem with NATO installing defensive systems, just as i don't see any problem with Russia installing offensive systems to compensate. it's pointless - yes, it only leads to more tension - bloody yes, this situation could have been resolved in some other way - probably, they should have tried at least, but it's completely justified nonetheless. NATO started this, Russia responded - end of story. and don't tell me again "you could just use some other means to maintain your capability of holding EU targets at risk" - thanks, we will decide what we use outselves.

FEOS wrote:
Eh? You did no such thing. You think it's perfectly reasonable to respond to the deployment of a defensive system, not aimed at your country, by staging offensive missiles closer to the countries fielding said defensive systems. I just don't see how that is reasonable by any definition, based solely on the threat posed (which is NONE, btw).

repeating an argument doesn't make it true, you have to actually back it up. how many times should i repeat this (edit: yeah, i do like repeating stuff too ): since those systems can actually intercept certain missiles - any missiles - and thus thwart Russia if they decided to use said missiles, it's a threat.
what i do agree with, however, is the way they actually did it. they could have simply announced they were building more missiles or something like that, but staging them close to the countries were ABM systems were being deployed is just about as idiotic as deployment of those systems in the first place.

FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
no. should i? but i'm sure Russia wouldn't mind if in response to them maneuvering with Venezuela and flying around US deployed some anti-naval and anti-air stuff.
Which is exactly the opposite of what's going on here. If Russia started deploying anti-naval and anti-air stuff and then the US started doing more naval maneuvers and air defense intrusions because of it...would that be OK? Because that's what Russia is doing in this case.

defense and offense are two sides of the same coin, so i don't see any difference between these two scenarios. so, yeah, that would be perfectly ok.

FEOS wrote:
What I meant was generally behaving in a rational manner in its relations with Western countries. That has nothing to do with their contentment with NATO...even though they never had an issue with NATO after the USSR broke up. That is, until Vlady-boy started trying to rebuild the Soviet empire. Those former Warsaw Pact states making their own decisions--based on their own national interests and not Mother Russia's--just really pissed him off, didn't it?

we obviously have different notion of what is "behaving in a rational manner". i repeat: should similar opportunity to gain influence open for US, i've no doubt whatsoever they'd behave the similar way Russia did in this situation.
oh, and if you actually think that Russia had no issues with NATO at all untill recently, you are mistaken again. so, there.

Last edited by Shahter (2008-11-11 08:07:05)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2008-11-11 08:06:16

#189

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6607|SE London

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
This system is clearly a mid-course interceptor system. Therefore, all your boost-phase arguments are null and void, as this system is not capable of boost-phase interception.
go on and find me where i actually said or implied that those systems were capable of boost-phase interception, then we'll continue this.

You've repeatedly implied it.

Shahter wrote:
oh, btw, for those who consider themselves a kickass weapon experts - do you know at which fase of ballistic missile' trajectory it can be tracked and shot down? it almost COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE to intercept the damn thing once it is out in space traveling at its maximum velocity surrounded by a shitload of dummy targets - you have to catch the missile BEFORE it reaches that point. so, tell me again: which ICBMs those missile defence installations in Poland are supposed to protect you from?

Shahter wrote:
they also tell me, that if systems in question were ment to intercept russian ICBMs in boost phase - the only effective way of countering those - Poland would actually be one of better places to deploy them.

So you've said the only effective way of countering such missiles is in boost phase and you've said that Poland would be the right place to locate systems designed to intercept in boost phase. You've also implied heavily that they're targeting Russian ICBMs in boost phase through out those posts (note the underlined segment above).

2008-11-11 08:18:49

#190

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6801|Moscow, Russia

Bertster7 wrote:
Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
This system is clearly a mid-course interceptor system. Therefore, all your boost-phase arguments are null and void, as this system is not capable of boost-phase interception.
go on and find me where i actually said or implied that those systems were capable of boost-phase interception, then we'll continue this.
You've repeatedly implied it.

Shahter wrote:
oh, btw, for those who consider themselves a kickass weapon experts - do you know at which fase of ballistic missile' trajectory it can be tracked and shot down? it almost COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE to intercept the damn thing once it is out in space traveling at its maximum velocity surrounded by a shitload of dummy targets - you have to catch the missile BEFORE it reaches that point. so, tell me again: which ICBMs those missile defence installations in Poland are supposed to protect you from?
Shahter wrote:
they also tell me, that if systems in question were ment to intercept russian ICBMs in boost phase - the only effective way of countering those - Poland would actually be one of better places to deploy them.
So you've said the only effective way of countering such missiles is in boost phase and you've said that Poland would be the right place to locate systems designed to intercept in boost phase. You've also implied heavily that they're targeting Russian ICBMs in boost phase through out those posts (note the underlined segment above).

yeah, yeah, i actualy went and found those posts myself just now. you see, i don't buy into "those systems aren't ment to be used agains Russia"-crap at all.
so yes, i did imply that those installations aren't what they want us to beleave they are.
anyway, you got me there, i admit it.

however, as this discussion went on, i specifically said that i'd put aside my personal vews on this matter and would make my conclusions on the assumption that everything we are told about real capabilities of those ABM systems is actually true.
so, there.

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2008-11-11 09:06:41

#191

motherdear: Member; +25|6677|Denmark/Minnesota (depends)

no matter what shahter you are missing the point here.

the ABM shield is purely a defensive capability against a possibly rogue missile. it makes no sense of Russia to install their offensive missiles pointing at europe, the defensive shield can not make a offensive move whatsoever, it would maybe be able to shoot a few missiles down but not many and nowhere near what Russia would already be able to launch and would launch if they decided to attack.

this is purely a move by russia to flex their muscles and nothing else, the shield does not pose any threat to MAD or Russia's already plentifull arsenal of missiles.

look at it like this, if russia launched an attack it would be with a heckload of missiles and the defensive shield would be like a mosquitoe annoying an Elephant. it simply does not make any sense since russia was offered in on the missile shield.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_ … d_999.html

quite simply the shield is built for older missiles than what Russia has in it's arsenal, and even the type of missiles that russia got that could be intercepted is in such a bulk amount that it would not matter if it was there or not, it would only matter if it was one or two lone missiles (again Iran would not be able to launch enough decoys to protect a missile against the shield, but russia would be able to to that easily)

but i must admit that it was a dumb move to ignore the ABM Treaty even though it's retarded since it does not serve a purpose, but a signed Treaty is a signed Treaty and ignoring it only makes you look like a bad guy and does not help the view on the US one bit.

Last edited by motherdear (2008-11-11 09:08:36)

2008-11-11 09:42:32

#192

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6437|'Murka

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
So, since you obviously aren't interested in examining the issue objectively
i'm not interested whatsoever in examining wikipedia or any such source of info, yes, because as i already told you everything that's available up there is what they want to be available. i have read that article before we started this argument, btw.

You do realize that wikipedia is a compilation from multiple sources, right? And that those sources are available for you to review, as well?

So, you don't believe what's in the open about the capabilities...even though it has received independent review. And why is that? Is it because it's inconvenient?

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
This system is clearly a mid-course interceptor system. Therefore, all your boost-phase arguments are null and void, as this system is not capable of boost-phase interception.
go on and find me where i actually said or implied that those systems were capable of boost-phase interception, then we'll continue this.

When you implied they were some kind of a threat to Russian ICBMs heading for the States. When you rejected the claim that they are designed to intercept the warheads post-boost. Those would be where.

If you don't want to continue, that's fine with me. Simply repeating your incorrect position does not make it more correct, and it's getting old, frankly.

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
What intentions could NATO have with a mid-course interception system...other than to intercept warheads that are heading for a NATO country? And you're saying that's a bad thing? And somehow threatening to Russia? Seriously?
FEOS wrote:
Assuming what, exactly? That the missiles will perform a function that they are incapable of performing? Paranoid much?
assuming that one day Russia will need to actually use something that can be countered with those ABM systems, what else?. Russia intends to maintain their capability to attack or retaliate with any weapon they find sutable for the situation, be it MRBMs or BB guns, and that is perfectly ok in my book. i don't see any problem with NATO installing defensive systems, just as i don't see any problem with Russia installing offensive systems to compensate. it's pointless - yes, it only leads to more tension - bloody yes, this situation could have been resolved in some other way - probably, they should have tried at least, but it's completely justified nonetheless. NATO started this, Russia responded - end of story. and don't tell me again "you could just use some other means to maintain your capability of holding EU targets at risk" - thanks, we will decide what we use outselves.

And if you bothered to actually read anything about this system, you would have quickly seen that the math doesn't add up for this to be a threat to Russia's ability to annihilate the planet if they so choose. The poor maintenance of Russian systems is more of a threat to Russian missile capability than this system is.

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Eh? You did no such thing. You think it's perfectly reasonable to respond to the deployment of a defensive system, not aimed at your country, by staging offensive missiles closer to the countries fielding said defensive systems. I just don't see how that is reasonable by any definition, based solely on the threat posed (which is NONE, btw).
repeating an argument doesn't make it true, you have to actually back it up. how many times should i repeat this (edit: yeah, i do like repeating stuff too ): since those systems can actually intercept certain missiles - any missiles - and thus thwart Russia if they decided to use said missiles, it's a threat.

As I said above (and many times before): do the math. You'll see in no uncertain terms that there simply aren't enough ABM missiles (or silos) to put a dent in Russia's ability to attack anyone else with their missiles. Math is proof, not opinion.

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Shahter wrote:
no. should i? but i'm sure Russia wouldn't mind if in response to them maneuvering with Venezuela and flying around US deployed some anti-naval and anti-air stuff.
Which is exactly the opposite of what's going on here. If Russia started deploying anti-naval and anti-air stuff and then the US started doing more naval maneuvers and air defense intrusions because of it...would that be OK? Because that's what Russia is doing in this case.
defense and offense are two sides of the same coin, so i don't see any difference between these two scenarios. so, yeah, that would be perfectly ok.

That's asinine. They are not two sides of the same coin...unless you're being utterly simplistic. And I can guarandamntee you that if the US started acting more aggressively toward Russian ships in the Caribbean and long range aviation near Alaska, you'd be shitting kittens and complaining till you turned blue in the face.

Shahter wrote:
FEOS wrote:
What I meant was generally behaving in a rational manner in its relations with Western countries. That has nothing to do with their contentment with NATO...even though they never had an issue with NATO after the USSR broke up. That is, until Vlady-boy started trying to rebuild the Soviet empire. Those former Warsaw Pact states making their own decisions--based on their own national interests and not Mother Russia's--just really pissed him off, didn't it?
we obviously have different notion of what is "behaving in a rational manner". i repeat: should similar opportunity to gain influence open for US, i've no doubt whatsoever they'd behave the similar way Russia did in this situation.

I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be putting purely offensive weapon systems on Russian/Venezuelan/<country x> borders because we didn't like the purely defensive systems those countries were installing with Russian help. For instance, Iran and Venezuela are both arming up with Russian equipment, some of it very advanced...are we putting missiles on the borders of those countries, or on Russia's borders? Nope. Because we understand those aren't a threat to us unless we choose to attack those countries.

Shahter wrote:
oh, and if you actually think that Russia had no issues with NATO at all untill recently, you are mistaken again. so, there.

I fully realize Russia had issues with NATO back in the day, but they had accepted that NATO was not a threat to Russia and never would be...until Vladdy took over, that is.

Shahter wrote:
i specifically said that i'd put aside my personal vews on this matter and would make my conclusions on the assumption that everything we are told about real capabilities of those ABM systems is actually true.
so, there.

Yet you consistently denounce those very claims. How can you make conclusions based on supposedly accepting something you claim not to accept? You're being intellectually dishonest.

2008-11-11 10:26:07

#193

PureFodder: Member; +225|6311

Missile shields are a purely defensive system only if you lack any offensive missile capability. If say, Iceland, which has no serious offensive capabilities decided to build a missile shield then they could correctly say that it only had defensive uses.

If a country with a serious offensive capability builds a missile shield, as a missile shield may allow a country to make a first strike attack and use the shield to protect themselves against a weakened retaliatory strike, the missile shield has a very important function in a first strike situation. Thusly it can be considered to be a first strike weapon. Russia, along with much of the world, sees it that way.

2008-11-11 10:40:05

#194

Braddock: Agitator; +916|6316|Éire

PureFodder wrote:
Missile shields are a purely defensive system only if you lack any offensive missile capability. If say, Iceland, which has no serious offensive capabilities decided to build a missile shield then they could correctly say that it only had defensive uses.

If a country with a serious offensive capability builds a missile shield, as a missile shield may allow a country to make a first strike attack and use the shield to protect themselves against a weakened retaliatory strike, the missile shield has a very important function in a first strike situation. Thusly it can be considered to be a first strike weapon. Russia, along with much of the world, sees it that way.

Very good point... and one that is almost universally ignored on the other side of the argument. Those in favour of the missile defence shield are pretty much expecting Russia to take America at its word on the nature of the program and how it will be used, which is naive and quite frankly ridiculous.

2008-11-11 11:14:43

#195

Shahter: Zee Ruskie; +295|6801|Moscow, Russia

Braddock wrote:
Those in favour of the missile defence shield are pretty much expecting Russia to take America at its word on the nature of the program and how it will be used, which is naive and quite frankly ridiculous.

i'm trying to get this point across to FEOS for i dunno how many posts already, but he keeps ignoring it .

@FEOS:
really, man, this discussion is getting nowhere. i've already said to you that you aren't going to convince me re the purpose and capabilities of US ABM systems with wikipedia as a source. this subject is closed as far as i'm conserned.

now on Russia's response to those installations:
let's forget about Russia's ability to turn this planet into radioactive flying rock and look at this issue this way - say, if today Russia deployed ANY kind of missile defence on Cuba pretending it was done to protect our Cuban friends from possible "terrorist" missiles from... um... Panama - how would US react? tell me they wouldn't mind at all and i'll yeild.

Last edited by Shahter (2008-11-11 11:24:55)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

2008-11-11 13:09:04

#196

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6413

PureFodder wrote:
Missile shields are a purely defensive system only if you lack any offensive missile capability. If say, Iceland, which has no serious offensive capabilities decided to build a missile shield then they could correctly say that it only had defensive uses.

If a country with a serious offensive capability builds a missile shield, as a missile shield may allow a country to make a first strike attack and use the shield to protect themselves against a weakened retaliatory strike, the missile shield has a very important function in a first strike situation. Thusly it can be considered to be a first strike weapon. Russia, along with much of the world, sees it that way.

Right. Because we would be able to just brush off the hundreds of missiles that would still hit our cities.... Oh wait....

2008-11-11 13:18:46

#197

imortal: Member; +240|6691|Austin, TX

Commie Killer wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
Missile shields are a purely defensive system only if you lack any offensive missile capability. If say, Iceland, which has no serious offensive capabilities decided to build a missile shield then they could correctly say that it only had defensive uses.

If a country with a serious offensive capability builds a missile shield, as a missile shield may allow a country to make a first strike attack and use the shield to protect themselves against a weakened retaliatory strike, the missile shield has a very important function in a first strike situation. Thusly it can be considered to be a first strike weapon. Russia, along with much of the world, sees it that way.
Right. Because we would be able to just brush off the hundreds of missiles that would still hit our cities.... Oh wait....

The problem goes right back into the Cold War and MAD. The Soviets (and now the Russians) were happy with the situation that if one went off, the whole world went bye-bye. The problem from their point of view is that if one side has a shield, it throws off the balance. It is no longer all-or-nothing. MAD is no longer an effective deterrent. PureFodder has the right of it. But that is from the Russian's viewpoint. From my viewpoint, I want the shield because more and more nations are developing the technology, and I believe in a strong defense. If the Russians don't like it, let them build their own shield.

Hey, since it is a defensive technology, why not make the technology public knowledge to all of the nations, to let them build their own, or at least similar models. Would that be better?

2008-11-11 13:21:14

#198

Commie Killer: Member; +192|6413

imortal wrote:
Commie Killer wrote:
PureFodder wrote:
Missile shields are a purely defensive system only if you lack any offensive missile capability. If say, Iceland, which has no serious offensive capabilities decided to build a missile shield then they could correctly say that it only had defensive uses.

If a country with a serious offensive capability builds a missile shield, as a missile shield may allow a country to make a first strike attack and use the shield to protect themselves against a weakened retaliatory strike, the missile shield has a very important function in a first strike situation. Thusly it can be considered to be a first strike weapon. Russia, along with much of the world, sees it that way.
Right. Because we would be able to just brush off the hundreds of missiles that would still hit our cities.... Oh wait....
The problem goes right back into the Cold War and MAD. The Soviets (and now the Russians) were happy with the situation that if one went off, the whole world went bye-bye. The problem from their point of view is that if one side has a shield, it throws off the balance. It is no longer all-or-nothing. MAD is no longer an effective deterrent. PureFodder has the right of it. But that is from the Russian's viewpoint. From my viewpoint, I want the shield because more and more nations are developing the technology, and I believe in a strong defense. If the Russians don't like it, let them build their own shield.

Hey, since it is a defensive technology, why not make the technology public knowledge to all of the nations, to let them build their own, or at least similar models. Would that be better?

Because you cant just let go of this technology. It all is tied together.

EDIT: Even the strike against Russia would fuck over the whole world, and ever a retaliatory strike against the US or who ever launched the missiles would still fuck that country over. 20 warheads going off would be enough to throw this or any country back to the stone age, and that is ignoring the nuclear winter that would result from this.

The simple fact is that nuclear war is not a viable option and WILL NOT OCCUR except by accident or if some madman presses the button(Impossible in the case of the US, not sure about the safety systems on other countries ICBM's and SLBM's.

Last edited by Commie Killer (2008-11-11 13:24:36)

2008-11-11 13:22:30

#199

Hurricane2k9: Pendulous Sweaty Balls; +1,538|5728|College Park, MD

Then everyone will have defense shields, then somebody will invent the anti-missile-defense-shield weapon, and then this whole debate starts up again...

https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/36793/marylandsig.jpg

2008-11-11 13:24:17

#200

imortal: Member; +240|6691|Austin, TX

Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Then everyone will have defense shields, then somebody will invent the anti-missile-defense-shield weapon, and then this whole debate starts up again...

Of course, this debate has been going on since someone figured out how to use stretched hide to deflect a thrown rock, then someone sharpened a stick to piece it, then someone made a shiled from wood.... This is a fight that has always gone on, and always will.

Pages: 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 15

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Russia

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote: