BF2S Forums Russia

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Can somebody please explain to me why the missile system has to be placed on the Russian border?

Pretty sure it's being placed in Poland and the CR...or are any countries that are within one country of Russia off-limits?

(Neither Poland nor the CR share a border with Russia proper).

At last someone is responding... okay it's not right on the border but why does it have to be in Eastern Europe?

Kmarion wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Wasn't Russia invited to participate?

i'd settle for a straght answer - and i DID try to answer all the questions i've been asked on the matter, unless those were obvious attemts to troll me for lulz. but you keep answering me with more questions.
anyway, Russia's Radar Cooperation Plan, Azerbaijan. how's that?

This is my first reply to you so I don't see how "I keep answering you with questions". You haven't addressed the fact that Russia was invited to participate in the new system. If that is the case then Russia wouldn't have had to, in Braddocks words "just take America at its word ".

Btw you answered me with a question.

It'll cost them money that they don't have, having no missile shield and reducing nuclear stockpiles (something that would likely be unfeasable as missile shields increase and improve) saves them money that they really could do more useful things with.

Kmarion wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

This is my first reply to you so I don't see how "I keep answering you with questions". You haven't addressed the fact that Russia was invited to participate in the new system. If that is the case then Russia wouldn't have had to, in Braddocks words "just take America at its word ".

Btw you answered me with a question.

It'll cost them money that they don't have, having no missile shield and reducing nuclear stockpiles (something that would likely be unfeasable as missile shields increase and improve) saves them money that they really could do more useful things with.

Well at least I got a genuine answer. I've never heard that. Where did you? I'm assuming that it would depend on how they define participate. If it's "hey we build it and you can man it" the cost would be minimal. From what I read the proposal was open ended.

Does anyone actually know the nature of the proposed inclusion deal regarding Russia's involvement in the missile shield or are we all working on conjecture? A 'we build it, you man it' proposal would seem pretty fair to me but do we even know if it was on the table?

Also... why does it have to be so near Russia's border again?

Kmarion wrote:

You haven't addressed the fact that Russia was invited to participate in the new system.

yeah, i didn't. i thought it would be obvious - Russia does not see the need for any new system and proposed to operate the existing radar station in Azerbajan, which btw is much better positioned than anything US could have build in CR - that is if we actually speaking of missile defense against ME. clear now?

FEOS wrote:

The world I live in is called "reality". Where we look at things objectively and make rational decisions based on facts. You really should visit.

oh, thanks, but i'm quite content to remain were i am. frankly, your "reality of objective outlook" based on double standarts and "facts" taken from wikipedia does not interest me one bit, no matter how wonderfull this world may look from there.

Last edited by Shahter (2008-11-12 22:52:02)

FEOS wrote:

And I said already it wouldn't be an issue. Because we know what the capabilities of those types of systems are and know they pose no threat whatsoever to our ability to hold targets in Cuba, Venezuela, or anywhere else at risk.

Try gingko biloba. It's supposed to help with short-term memory.

FEOS wrote:

By the time the system is on line, Iran is going to have longer-range missiles in their inventory.

You might want to try that gingko biloba stuff as you're arguing against yourself. Clearly South American countries can develop better missiles too.

Plus, the obvious points that never gets answered.
a) These missiles will never be fired in an Iranian first strike situation, they aren't utterly suicidal.
b) Any missiles that they do fire will almost certainly be aimed at Israel, not south east Europe.

Shahter wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

You haven't addressed the fact that Russia was invited to participate in the new system.

yeah, i didn't. i thought it would be obvious - Russia does not see the need for any new system and proposed to operate the existing radar station in Azerbajan, which btw is much better positioned than anything US could have build in CR - that is if we actually speaking of missile defense against ME. clear now?

The point is to clarify intent.... obviously.

FEOS wrote:

Braddock wrote:

At last someone is responding... okay it's not right on the border but why does it have to be in Eastern Europe?

Don't know...maybe because they've got the space for it? Not sure what all goes into site surveys for those things, but I do know that it's not always intuitive where the best places are on the ground when dealing with space-related things.

So it just happens to be going on the periphery of Russia, America's former arch nemesis' border?

What is the purpose of this system? From whom is it anticipating attack?

Commie Killer wrote:

.Sup wrote:

So what if defensive missiles are put on Cuba facing towards the US and are there to defend Cuba from threat from Asia and Middle east. What would USA do?

Probably not care....

Are you sure? Because a couple of aerial photographs of random holes in the ground in the Iraqi desert were enough to rattle ye a few years back.

I'll ask again... from whom is this missile system expecting attack?

Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-13 08:34:15)

Braddock wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

.Sup wrote:

So what if defensive missiles are put on Cuba facing towards the US and are there to defend Cuba from threat from Asia and Middle east. What would USA do?

Probably not care....

Are you sure? Because a couple of aerial photographs of random holes in the ground in the Iraqi desert were enough to rattle ye a few years back.

I'll ask again... from whom is this missile system expecting attack?

Lets try to keep it away from Iraq, but they were thought to be WMD's which are offensive weapons.

PureFodder wrote:

You might want to try that gingko biloba stuff as you're arguing against yourself. Clearly South American countries can develop better missiles too.

Plus, the obvious points that never gets answered.
a) These missiles will never be fired in an Iranian first strike situation, they aren't utterly suicidal.
b) Any missiles that they do fire will almost certainly be aimed at Israel, not south east Europe.

Have any South American countries developed any missiles? No.

You are making assumptions and calling them "obvious points". You don't know either of those as fact...only your supposition.

Braddock wrote:

So it just happens to be going on the periphery of Russia, America's former arch nemesis' border?

It's not on the periphery of Russia. It's at least one country removed from Russia in both cases.

Braddock wrote:

What is the purpose of this system? From whom is it anticipating attack?

Haven't we already covered both of those questions enough?
1. Defense against inbound missiles.
2. Rogue states (not Russia).

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

You might want to try that gingko biloba stuff as you're arguing against yourself. Clearly South American countries can develop better missiles too.

Plus, the obvious points that never gets answered.
a) These missiles will never be fired in an Iranian first strike situation, they aren't utterly suicidal.
b) Any missiles that they do fire will almost certainly be aimed at Israel, not south east Europe.

Have any South American countries developed any missiles? No.

You are making assumptions and calling them "obvious points". You don't know either of those as fact...only your supposition.

The notion that Iran is willing to commit utter suicide is a massive leap of supposition.

As is the notion that Iran's leadership would view it as such.

PureFodder wrote:

Surely the idea of the Iranian leadership deciding to bring about the complete destruction of their own country is a massivly unlikely occurance. Plus we know they hate Israel, Israel is very much in range of Iranian missiles. Their relations with Europe are far better than their relations with Israel

Again, your supposition. I agree it is far more likely that they would hit Israel, but Israel has their own ABM system. You plan for the most dangerous, as well as the most likely course of action for the threat. The most dangerous is hitting Europe with a WMD warhead of some sort. The most likely is hitting Israel with the same. The most likely COA is taken care of by Israel. We're working to counter the most dangerous.

PureFodder wrote:

The idea that South Americans aren't developing amazing new missiles is (wait for it).... only your supposition. You don't know that as a fact.

And just why would you assume I don't know that for a fact?

PureFodder wrote:

You really have absolutely no sensible answer to either point do you?

Meh. Read above.

PureFodder wrote:

If it is not supposed to be used against Russian missiles, are you proposing that in the event of Russia and the US firing missiles at each other the US is going to sportingly turn the thing off and let the Russian missiles through? Whatever you claim the purpose of the shield is, it CAN be used against Russian missiles therefore it is a threat to Russia.

/headdesk
/headdesk
/headdesk

Dear GOD! Please read once in a while. This issue has been addressed multiple times in this thread and multiple times in multiple other threads.

Gingko biloba. Try it. Seriously.

In the event of Russia and the US firing missiles at each other, the ABM system in Europe wouldn't be capable of doing anything. It is a mid-course intercept system. Mid-course for Russian missiles launched at the US is somewhere over the North Pole. The system in Europe can't intercept missiles in that trajectory. So therefore, per the laws of freakin' physics...it CANNOT be used against Russian missiles heading for the US and therefore IS NOT a threat to Russia.

Is that clear enough?

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Have any South American countries developed any missiles? No.

You are making assumptions and calling them "obvious points". You don't know either of those as fact...only your supposition.

The notion that Iran is willing to commit utter suicide is a massive leap of supposition.

As is the notion that Iran's leadership would view it as such.

Actually, it's not a massive leap of supposition to believe that the Iranian leadership understands that the US/UK/France/Israel/Russia each have the capability to utterly destroy Iran.
Show that the Iranian leadership either don't understand MAD or don't care.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Surely the idea of the Iranian leadership deciding to bring about the complete destruction of their own country is a massivly unlikely occurance. Plus we know they hate Israel, Israel is very much in range of Iranian missiles. Their relations with Europe are far better than their relations with Israel

Again, your supposition. I agree it is far more likely that they would hit Israel, but Israel has their own ABM system. You plan for the most dangerous, as well as the most likely course of action for the threat. The most dangerous is hitting Europe with a WMD warhead of some sort. The most likely is hitting Israel with the same. The most likely COA is taken care of by Israel. We're working to counter the most dangerous.

Actually the most dangerous course of action would be Iran firing it's missiles the other way, towards the more densely populated cities in India.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

The idea that South Americans aren't developing amazing new missiles is (wait for it).... only your supposition. You don't know that as a fact.

And just why would you assume I don't know that for a fact?

Because your repeatedly arguing against yourself. If Iran can develop better missiles, go crazy and lauch an attack, so can anyone else.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

You really have absolutely no sensible answer to either point do you?

Meh. Read above.

I did, the answers aren't sensible as they rely almost exclusively upon Iranian leadership going crazy and attacking Europe for no apparent reason.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

If it is not supposed to be used against Russian missiles, are you proposing that in the event of Russia and the US firing missiles at each other the US is going to sportingly turn the thing off and let the Russian missiles through? Whatever you claim the purpose of the shield is, it CAN be used against Russian missiles therefore it is a threat to Russia.

/headdesk
/headdesk
/headdesk

Dear GOD! Please read once in a while. This issue has been addressed multiple times in this thread and multiple times in multiple other threads.

Gingko biloba. Try it. Seriously.

In the event of Russia and the US firing missiles at each other, the ABM system in Europe wouldn't be capable of doing anything. It is a mid-course intercept system. Mid-course for Russian missiles launched at the US is somewhere over the North Pole. The system in Europe can't intercept missiles in that trajectory. So therefore, per the laws of freakin' physics...it CANNOT be used against Russian missiles heading for the US and therefore IS NOT a threat to Russia.

Is that clear enough?

Russian missiles can be fired at US military bases in Europe and against European allies of the US.