BF2S Forums Russia

I think the best thing would be a true shield - something like the Firestorm defense system from Command and Conquer.

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...

Pretty much it is to saturate the area with missiles and decoys at this time as the system is designed for only a few missiles with no MIRV's and no decoys. I assume it will eventually be upgraded to differentiate between the decoys and the actual warheads, but I am confident that if we and other countries(such as Russia) went after this system with the same amount of gusto we had when we created and refined nuclear and thermonuclear weapons and their delivery systems, that it will be possible to eventually negate the threat of 24/7 nuclear annihilation in 30minutes. These systems are a step towards peace in my opinion, but I know people dont agree with that. I dont pretend to understand the reasoning behind it, but I think part of it is that some of you have grown up with "The Bomb" hanging over your heads and have gotten used to it.


Its like standing in a room filled with gun powder, and both of you are holding up a burning flare. As long as you hold your flare up, you'll live, and you stay still because you don't want to drop your flare. But eventually, your arm will get tired, and I hope there is a bucket of water underneath it when that happens.

Commie Killer wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Shahter wrote:

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.

That's exactly the point. We already know how the US would react to missile systems being placed on Cuba hence why it is so mind bogglingly hypocritical that they would themselves attempt the exact same thing in Poland, the Czech Repiublic and possibly Ukraine nowadays.

Really? You seem to equate MRBM's and interceptor missiles as the same thing.

So are the Americans going to allow the Russians to oversee and observe all aspects of the installation of these missile sites from blueprints to completion? Or are they, as I have said before, expecting the Russians to take them at their word?

"No, no, seriously... they can only fire small 'defensive' missiles".

Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-11 13:50:26)

Commie Killer wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Really? You seem to equate MRBM's and interceptor missiles as the same thing.

So are the Americans going to allow the Russians to oversee and observe all aspects of the installation of these missile sites from blueprints to completion? Or are they, as I have said before, expecting the Russians to take them at their word?

"No, no, seriously... they can only fire small 'defensive' missiles".

We did offer to help them construct one remember?

The Russians don't want one, any form of additional arms race will cost them money that they don't have. The Russians appear far more interested in mutual disarmament at the moment.

Braddock wrote:

Why exactly does it have to be on the Russian border again?

Anyone?

PureFodder wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Why exactly does it have to be on the Russian border again?

Anyone?

Because apparently the US want to spend a large amount of money making a defense system that will protect Europe from an Iranian attack. The obvious questions being why would they want to spend lots of money protecting Europe, especially as Iran doesn't have any missiles that could fire that far.

It just doesn't make any sense. Why not put the missile system in Israel? Israel is closer to Iran than all of the proposed locations... even the Ukraine. The US gives Israel shitloads of aid so it's not like they'd able to reject their request in this regard. Plus they already have serious weapons capabilities already so it's not their Middle Eastern neighbours would get any more annoyed.

So again, why on the Russian border?

Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-11 16:43:06)

Commie Killer wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

We did offer to help them construct one remember?

The Russians don't want one, any form of additional arms race will cost them money that they don't have. The Russians appear far more interested in mutual disarmament at the moment.

Im sorry. But I cant help but lol at this.

Can you explain to me why the missile system has to be located on the Russian border? I'm getting very few answers on this.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-11 17:22:53)

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

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.

Shahter wrote:

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.

FEOS, hellooo? you keep ignoring this argument through this whole discussion. answer, let's settle this already .

Shahter wrote:

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.

Shahter wrote:

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.

FEOS, hellooo? you keep ignoring this argument through this whole discussion. answer, let's settle this already .

Wasn't Russia invited to participate?

He invited Russia to participate in the shield as a partner.

The Bush administration has invited Russia to participate in the shield, but talks have fizzled.

As a matter of fact why don't you cooperate with us on a missile defence system, why don't you participate with the United States?"

Commie Killer wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

We did offer to help them construct one remember?

The Russians don't want one, any form of additional arms race will cost them money that they don't have. The Russians appear far more interested in mutual disarmament at the moment.

Im sorry. But I cant help but lol at this.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? … p;aid=8564
Russia has serious financial problems, maintaining lots of nuclear weapons costs crap loads of money. Nuclear weapons aren't very useful for anything.

It's clearly in Russias best interests to have some mutual disarmament, missile shields clearly reduce everyones willingness to disarm missiles.

Shahter wrote:

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.

Shahter wrote:

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.

FEOS, hellooo? you keep ignoring this argument through this whole discussion. answer, let's settle this already .

Panama doesn't have any missiles.

OK. That argument's done. Got any more?

Regardless, that particular train of thought has already been discussed in this thread--which means the only ignoring being done is by you.

It dealt with putting missile defense sites in Cuba to protect Cuba (and maybe Venezuela) from rogue missiles from somewhere in S America.

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:

Panama doesn't have any missiles.

OK. That argument's done. Got any more?

Regardless, that particular train of thought has already been discussed in this thread--which means the only ignoring being done is by you.

It dealt with putting missile defense sites in Cuba to protect Cuba (and maybe Venezuela) from rogue missiles from somewhere in S America.

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.

So, what exactly is the US system supposed to be doing? Preventing an Iranian strike on Eastern Bulgaria?