BF2S Forums Russia

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

A warhead is an object that follows the laws of physics. It's no different than taking out a satellite. It's hard, yes, but not anywhere close to impossible.

well, we aren't going to agree on the one i guess - its just your sources vs my sources.

And education. And training. And then there's physics and whatnot.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

what about Russian MRBMs and IRBMs - couldn't those be shot down?

Yes. Mainly because the ones in the ME this system is really focused on are old Soviet designs. The missiles Russia is moving to the area are the very type this system was designed to operate against. And I already explained the difference between the ICBMs that Russia has and the MRBM threat the system is focused on.

okay, now we've a misunderstanding here (i blame my poor english - which is, you know, not my native language). by "Russian MRBMs" i didn't mean "missiles manufactured in Russia", i ment just that - "missiles Russia has deployed itself".

I realize what you meant. What I was pointing out is that the missiles Russia has deployed are the same/very similar to the ones the system is focused on, as those were built on Russian designs.

Shahter wrote:

so, i still don't see your point here: USA deploys ABM system capable of intercepting certain missiles next to Russian borders supposedly to defend their NATO allies in EU from "terrorists". ok, fine, no problem whatsoever - let's go even farther and actually pretend that system is really only capable of defeating middle- and intermediate-ranged missiles. great! only, as Bertster7 already mentioned, in response to that, Russia had to deploy more said missiles in the region to maintain status quo. so, what's wrong, damnit?

How is Russia deploying purely offensive missiles in response to a purely defensive system that isn't intended to be used against Russian missiles unless they are launched at Europe maintaining the status quo? Russia is seeing "oneupmanship" where none exists. It is a stretch at best.

It's like saying that because you installed a house alarm, I'm going to buy a shotgun and point it at your house. It's nonsensical.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Just keep reading the "free press" in Russia. They'll tell you everything Vlad the Inhaler wants you to hear.

puh-lease, dude, don't start this shit. your "free press", my "free press" - there's no difference whatsoever. forget for a moment what i said and look at the responses in this thread. now, i know, it's just an internet forum about a video games, but still - i'd bet you money everybody speaking against Russia in this thread is from US. go figure.

No, not everyone. In fact, there are a few (both US and European) who are speaking out against both the ABM installations AND Russia's response. Go figure.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I have no problem with Russia trying to re-establish themselves internationally. Doing it via saber-rattling is an abject failure though (see last 5 years of US administration's actions). But if Russia wants to do exactly what it says it has problems with others doing...have at it. It would be par for the course in the double standards department.

now, here i'm inclined to agree. the problem, imho, is that US has gone too far this time. what's it been - a decade, or two? - since US had nobody in this world who dared doing something agains them? i'm affraind some sort of "saber-rattling" was unavoidable - otherwise they just wouldn't notice. however, don't get me wrong here - i pretty much agree that this "dick weaving" is ugly and stupid and ultimately won't do any good. the last thing the world needs these days is another Cold War.

"Dick weaving" sounds really painful. Let's hope it doesn't come to that (rimshot).

Berster7 wrote:

Basically, this whole ABM system is not worth the grief it causes, let alone the cost. You also have to consider the fact it's a bit rubbish - because intercepting a missile with a high level of reliability is extremely difficult.

And I don't disagree with this at all.

What I have been disagreeing with are those who say the ABM system is offensive in nature and that Russia is in any way justified in viewing it as a threat. You've clearly articulated that it's not an offensive threat to them, nor is it a realistic threat to MAD.

So we are in violent agreement.

oug wrote:

What a nice world you live in FEOS!

Why thank you. I like to call it "reality" or "the real world". You should visit sometime.

oug wrote:

Apparently in your mind, the PM of Poland is free to choose the best for his country as he sees fit eh? No outside pressures from the more powerful eh? He just woke up one fine morning and said hey, what can I do to piss my people off? Let's get some American missiles installed! Who cares about Russia being pissed, I gotta protect my country from the evil Iranians who live a million miles away and have no beef with us. Two birds with one stone! Yayyy!!

Yes, the PM of Poland is free to choose what he deems best for his country. It's part of his job description. Sometimes, what is best for the country is not always popular. That's the bitch about being in charge...you have to make decisions that piss people off.

Berster7 wrote:

No one is disputing the fact they did allow them. That doesn't change the fact they were pressured into a deal (a stupid and pointless deal) they originally did not want to accept - which is a matter on public record. Not hidden behind closed doors as you suggest.

It's so easy to say they were "pressured". The installations were not tied to any carrot for Poland or the CR, nor were they tied to any stick. It's just convenient to say they were "pressured" because the general population didn't approve.

But here's a bit of news for you: The general public doesn't (nor should they) make policy decisions.

If the elected officials didn't want to accept it, they shouldn't have done so. There were no ramifications to either country for turning it down - which is a matter of public record.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

well, we aren't going to agree on the one i guess - its just your sources vs my sources.

And education. And training. And then there's physics and whatnot.

... and it's all pure theory. the fact of the matter is this: warheads radar signature is too low and they are indistinguishable from other junk that gets into space along wih them. there are chances that if you throw a coin it will stand on its edge, sure, but i wouldn't count on it.
so, since you never defeated any of the above points, it's still your supposed "education, training and whatnot" against my sources - and i trust those better, sorry.

None of that is "fact". You have no concept of what is possible. We track chips of paint in orbit, ffs! Chips of paint! I'm sure their RCS is quite a bit lower than that of a unitary MRBM warhead. I don't have to prove anything...it's already been proven by been done...repeatedly.

Just what are your "sources" that they don't even know that? You're being fed a line of crap, and you seriously need to educate yourself a bit more on the topic...independent of your "sources".

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Russia deploying purely offensive missiles in response to a purely defensive system that isn't intended to be used against Russian missiles

but you do agree that those ABM systems could be used against Russian missiles, right? and Russia should just take your word that they won't? sorry, won't happen.

As I said long ago...only if the missiles are inbound to Europe. The ABM system in Europe can't do squat about Russian missiles heading toward the US...like has been said repeatedly here and in other threads.

What is possible and the intended use are not one and the same.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

unless they are launched at Europe

there are NATO members in Europe, dude. and NATO's still opposing Russia (or was it the other way around?).

Is Russia planning on launching missiles at Europe? I suppose no one should sell air defense systems to those countries either, right?

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

How's that ...... maintaining status quo?

both offense and defense should be taken into account when considering status quo, so it's very simple - NATO increases its defensive capabilities, Russia chooses to respond by increasing its offensive capabilities.

Only if Russia thinks they need to go on the offensive against NATO...what are your sources telling you about that?

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No, not everyone. In fact, there are a few (both US and European) who are speaking out against both the ABM installations AND Russia's response. Go figure.

very few, so my point still stands.

Not as a proportion of postings in this thread. So no...your point does not stand.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

"Dick weaving" sounds really painful. Let's hope it doesn't come to that (rimshot).

well, thanks for finding another typo. +1 to you

You gotta admit, the mental image is disturbing in the extreme.

why the name change dilbert?

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

So is that guy just Dilbert_X's alternative account or is he actually a real dude in Russia

well he fights with FEOS in the same fashion....so i am just guessing.

Kmarion wrote:

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

a real dude in Russia

lulz....did dilbert give him a class in FEOSenomics?

I can't insult him too much otherwise he might cut off the heating in my house

FEOS wrote:

You know people who build ABM systems? Really? Didn't realize Russia had one.

no. those people i spoke about build ballistic missiles.

anyway...

FEOS wrote:

I work daily with people who operate and build space programs for a living. I read the test reports for the ABM tests. We can continue this e-penis comparison all day...and you'll still be exactly where you started: ill-informed.

it's all "e-penis comparison" as you mentioned yourself. so, whatever.

FEOS wrote:

Only if there is a threat. There is zero threat posed by this system to Russia's national security.

i repeat - it's offense AND defense COMBINED that gets taken into account when considering status quo. anything that leads to imparity is a threat.

FEOS wrote:

The only threat posed by it is mostly political...it moves former satellites farther from Moscow's influence.

fixed it for you. and with that i fully agree. my previous point still stands though.

FEOS wrote:

Actually, nukes were intended to be used...we've just gotten past that.

and it happened sooo long ago (right after Carribean, probably), that i don't see how this is relevant to the topic we are discussing here.

FEOS wrote:

And nukes are an offensive weapon--period. These are defensive in nature--period. Once you get to these diametrically opposed facts...

... which just happen to be two sides of the same coin, the comparison looks just as valid to me as ever.

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

I can't insult him too much otherwise he might cut off the heating in my house

oh, be my guest. it's been a long time since i've been actually offended by some post on the internet forums . give me your best shot, dude.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Basically, this whole ABM system is not worth the grief it causes, let alone the cost. You also have to consider the fact it's a bit rubbish - because intercepting a missile with a high level of reliability is extremely difficult.

And I don't disagree with this at all.

What I have been disagreeing with are those who say the ABM system is offensive in nature and that Russia is in any way justified in viewing it as a threat. You've clearly articulated that it's not an offensive threat to them, nor is it a realistic threat to MAD.

So we are in violent agreement.

OK then.

I assumed you supported the project. I don't think it's a threat to Russia at all (I should add that I also think Russia are being way over the top here - but they're Russia, it would be naive to expect them to act any other way), I just think it's a horrendously bad idea and a waste of money that could be much better used elsewhere - I wonder how many schools they could've built for the same amount of taxpayers money.....

Fortunately Obama has spoken publicly about his plans to cut spending on such projects by 10s of billions of dollars.

Obama wrote:

I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

No one is disputing the fact they did allow them. That doesn't change the fact they were pressured into a deal (a stupid and pointless deal) they originally did not want to accept - which is a matter on public record. Not hidden behind closed doors as you suggest.

It's so easy to say they were "pressured". The installations were not tied to any carrot for Poland or the CR, nor were they tied to any stick. It's just convenient to say they were "pressured" because the general population didn't approve.

But here's a bit of news for you: The general public doesn't (nor should they) make policy decisions.

If the elected officials didn't want to accept it, they shouldn't have done so. There were no ramifications to either country for turning it down - which is a matter of public record.

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.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-08 05:21:29)

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Then just how are they experts on ABM systems?

oh, c'mon dude, isn't it obvious? they build things that are supposed to me countered with ABM systems, right? so they have to know what kinda stuff their missiles will be met with, right? so, there.

oh, c'mon dude, isn't it obvious? Russia hasn't built a successful ABM system.

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. So, your "sources" while I'm sure they are smart in building ICBMs, aren't experts in ABM technology. And of course they're going to say that what they build is invincible.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And I repeat: This system poses no offensive or defensive threat to Russia...unless they want to start launching MRBMs at Europe--and then it's only a threat to the warheads that Russia attacked Europe with. Does anyone think that Russia is planning to do that?

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. See how that works?

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.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You never answered my other question: Would Russia consider Poland and/or CR installing US-made air defenses to be an "offensive" threat?

and how is that relevant to this discussion? every country out there is entitled to their own air defenses, and it doesn't matter if they use US made Patriots, Russia made S-300s, or Chineeze paintball markers for that. what we discussing here is NOT their own air defenses - and, you'll have to admit, they'd never in their right mind install those ABMs for themselves.

How is it not? It's a purely defensive system designed to protect them from air threats (Russian or otherwise). It is no different. Defensive systems do not pose a threat to anyone who doesn't intend to attack.

The only thing I have to admit is that neither Poland nor the CR have the resources to develop and deploy the technology. That has nothing to do with what their governments have decided to do.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

... which just happen to be two sides of the same coin, the comparison looks just as valid to me as ever.

They aren't at all two sides of the same coin. The comparison only looks valid to you because it's convenient to your argument. Again, this is like pointing a gun at your neighbor's house because they installed an alarm system. It's nonsensical.

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.

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.

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.

Reminded me of this:

Batman Begins wrote:

Escalation, we start wearing Kevlar, the criminals will start using armor-piercing bullets. You’re wearing a mask…

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-09 04:08:34)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Basically, this whole ABM system is not worth the grief it causes, let alone the cost. You also have to consider the fact it's a bit rubbish - because intercepting a missile with a high level of reliability is extremely difficult.

Does intercepting a missle tipped with biological or chemical weapons really achieve a lot?
As I understand it the hope is basically the incoming missile is 'disrupted', ie suffers some mechanical damage. Its not like the films where both missile and AMD disappear in an orange flash.
Fine for nuclear warheads, a little damage and they fail to detonate. Not such a great achievement if its a chemical or biological weapon which just needs to hit the ground.

No. That's not how it works.

Raytheon wrote:

The Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) consists of an infrared seeker in a flight package used to detect and discriminate the reentry vehicle from other objects. The “hit-to-kill” concept involves colliding with the incoming warhead, completely pulverizing it. This collision ensures complete destruction of a warhead carrying weapons of mass destruction — nuclear, biological or chemical — and the means of delivery, such as mid-range and longrange ballistic missiles. Accidental or unauthorized attacks by nuclear-capable nations, or attacks by rogue nations or a terrorist group represent significant concerns.