BF2S Forums Russia

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

usmarine wrote:

you know...we cant just place them where ever the hell we want.  people had to agree to them.  so, and of course, no discussion about that at all.

What about the SDI President Reagan built on space himself?

he built it himself?

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

usmarine wrote:

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

What about the SDI President Reagan built on space himself?

he built it himself?

Yes, isn't it online?

Wouldn't that be nice....


But seriously. What the fuck is preventing Russia from creating their own. We all know that both the FSB/former KGB/etc. and the CIA/NSA/DIA/etc. are good at stealing each others secrets.

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

Yes, isn't it online?

Wouldn't that be nice....


But seriously. What the fuck is preventing Russia from creating their own. We all know that both the FSB/former KGB/etc. and the CIA/NSA/DIA/etc. are good at stealing each others secrets.

I think they don't do it because its cheaper to develop offensive capabilities (and widens the deterrent power) compared to a defense network.

They already have the offensive capability. Figure a missile and a radar is cheaper then a nuclear tipped missile which must have its own blast proof shelter and all the extra maintenance.

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

MGS3_GrayFox wrote:

I think they don't do it because its cheaper to develop offensive capabilities (and widens the deterrent power) compared to a defense network.

They already have the offensive capability. Figure a missile and a radar is cheaper then a nuclear tipped missile which must have its own blast proof shelter and all the extra maintenance.

They don't need all missiles with nuclear warheads.  Just launch one nuke and 1000 dummy missiles and the defense system wouldn't know which one to shoot at.

1000 ICBMs are expensive, 1 ICBM is expensive. At the end of the day, a missile meant to travel the short distance to the interception point is cheaper then the missile designed to fly 7000 miles and carry a nuclear or a dummy warhead.

Warning: Wall of text with multiple responses to multiple posts...

.Sup wrote:

Obviously it is offensive to Russia since they have never considered placing missiles in Europe till now. Is it a coincidence then?

Russia would take offense if the US or NATO installed a toilet (which has just as much offensive capability as these missile systems) in one of its former satellite states. So no...not a coincidence.

Berster7 wrote:

If you want an imperfect analogy, it's a bit like a water gun fight which is at a stalemate because neither of the two people with water guns want to get wet. Then one of them goes off and gets a raincoat so they are much better protected against getting wet and goes back and sprays the other one with water with impunity.

We've gone over this many times before. Russia has enough missiles that if they wanted to take out Europe, they could do it. This system is designed to take out one or two missiles inbound to Europe. Russia has nothing to worry about WRT MAD.

A more apt analogy would be two people with fire hoses and a third just standing there wearing a raincoat. The raincoat doesn't protect the other guy with a fire hose, and the raincoat doesn't protect the third guy if a fire hose gets turned on him. But it does protect him from the annoying little brother who sneaks up and tries to shoot him with a water gun.

Braddock wrote:

Let's face it FEOS, the US are installing missiles on the periphery of Russia... the rest, as far as Russia are concerned, is mere details. I'd like to see the US be so accommodating if Russia put a missile system in Mexico to prevent against attacks from rogue South American nations.

If the missile system were of the same nature as the one being proposed for installation in Europe, I'm willing to bet we wouldn't care. It would be no threat to us or our ability to hit Russia if necessary. Since we're not planning on launching any missiles at Mexico any time soon, we would rightly understand it wasn't intended to stop us from doing anything....hence, no threat.

Dilbert_X wrote:

As I remember it the US got a bit twitchy when the Russians installed missiles off the US coast, why is no-one surprised the Russians are pissed off?

And if the US installed short range nuclear missiles at those sites (as the USSR did in Cuba), your comparison would be valid. However, we didn't and won't...so it isn't.

Braddock wrote:

Because apparently this time it's different... this is a defensive missile system, not an offensive one! You see?

See above. Even though you're trying to be funny...you're spot on.

.Sup wrote:

Thats what USA says anyway. When they are looking away from US its defensive, when the missiles are looking towards them, they are called "offensive missiles" and must be removed.

Read about it. The physics and numbers simply don't work for it to be a threat to Russia.

Berster7 wrote:

The only credible nuclear threat there is, is from terrorists. I'll tell you now, terrorists won't be using ICBMs as a nuke delivery system.

You're forgetting Iran (and possibly Syria). It's not just about nukes, it's also about conventional and chem/bio. The threat this is designed to counter are "rogue states" launching small numbers of warheads at Europe. Not just nukes, and not Russia.

oug wrote:

Poland and the Czech Republic were forced to accept this deal. America is not just there delivering the goods. This whole thing serves American interests, not Polish. The Polish government was just easier to swerve. If you were honest enough you would admit that a country like Poland or the Czech Republic do NOT need a missile defense system. For those who remember, the lame excuse was that this was a defense system against a possible missile attack on Europe by Iran! (lol) So enough with the bullshit excuses etc. Admit it.

Nobody forced anyone to accept the deal. That's just bunk. If it didn't serve Polish or Czech interests, they wouldn't have done it. It's that simple. Additionally, it's not just for Poland and CR...it's for Europe as a whole. The sites are in Poland and the CR simply because those countries agreed to them. If some other country had agreed to it, they would be there. Whether you agree with the threat or not is irrelevant. Those who are paid to assess threat and take appropriate action to protect their interests have done that and acted accordingly.

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?

It's not at all impossible. China and the US have both done it...recently. The ONLY time you can effectively intercept a warhead (notice I said WARHEAD, not MISSILE) is post-boost, normally post-apogee. Intercepting in the boost phase is what the Airborne Laser is designed to do, and it's nowhere near operational.

Since you seem to consider yourself a "kickass weapon expert"...do you realize that the missiles that particular system is designed to stop are NOT the ICBMs of Russia? It is focused on the MRBMs in the ME and the shorter-range ICBMs of Asia. Those don't have dummy targets associated with them...they don't even have MIRVs. They are unitary warheads because that's all the rocket bodies can handle.

Zimmer wrote:

Which, in turn, is the US's response to the building of a naval base in Venezuela.

That little initiative started well after negotiations with Poland and the CR.

The above views are what happens when you buy into hyperbole without research. I too was concerned when I first heard about it and then I (gasp) read a bit about the systems being installed. They pose ZERO threat to Russia. They pose ZERO threat to MAD. They only pose a threat to one or two warheads inbound to Europe. They CANNOT defeat missiles inbound to the US. They CANNOT defeat missiles in boost phase coming out of Russia (regardless of their destination).

Russia knows all of this, but (like some here), they refuse to acknowledge that publicly because it does not suit their agenda of trying to regain their influence over former satellite states. They do the same thing regarding NATO expansion, NATO basing in former satellite states, military cooperation of those states with the US and NATO, etc. It has nothing to do with an actual national security threat to Russia. It has everything to do with a threat to their agenda and pride.

It's crazy. You people have no issue with baseless fearmongering on the part of Russia, but decry any US mention of any threat anywhere.

If you people are any kind of representative sample of Europe, then the entire continent needs to enter a Double Standards Twelve-Step Program.

Whatever.
The ABM systems break the anti-missile treaty, so the Russians are pissed.
It would have been mch simpler just to negotiate an agreement with the Russians than go ahead and do it.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's not at all impossible. China and the US have both done it...recently. The ONLY time you can effectively intercept a warhead (notice I said WARHEAD, not MISSILE) is post-boost, normally post-apogee. Intercepting in the boost phase is what the Airborne Laser is designed to do, and it's nowhere near operational.

all of the above is simply wrong, don't trust everything you read on wikipedia, mate. i've spoken to those who actually build those ICBMs in russia. US, China - and Russia too, btw - boast as lot of things, but the fact of the matter is this: there are no effective ways to intercept the warhead, and no way whatsoever to tell the damn thing from dummy targets it brings along with it. the only effective way to stop the warhead(s) is to catch the missile that carries it.

That's cute. I don't get my info off of wikipedia...mate.

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. Whoever was feeding you crap about the possibility or impossibility of hitting a warhead and/or differentiating it from decoys was just that: feeding you crap. It can be done, because it has been done. It's really that simple.

Shahter wrote:

oh, and just lol at your laser, dude. sorry, but this whole thing is a hoax. you aren't even going to scratch a giant flying tin can that is ballistic missile with that "Airborne Laser"-thing.

It's not a hoax, but I doubt it will ever be operational. Hence my statement about it being nowhere close to operational.

Shahter wrote:

Since you seem to consider yourself a "kickass weapon expert"...do you realize that the missiles that particular system is designed to stop are NOT the ICBMs of Russia?

They pose ZERO threat to Russia. They pose ZERO threat to MAD. They only pose a threat to one or two warheads inbound to Europe. They CANNOT defeat missiles inbound to the US. They CANNOT defeat missiles in boost phase coming out of Russia (regardless of their destination).

c'mon, dude, you are telling me that ABM systems designed to stop missiles coming from Middle East cannot defeat Russian missiles - wtf, huh? open the bloody map already and see where Poland, ME and Russia are. also, you didn't forget that its still Russia vs NATO, not just US, did you? i admit that i don't know much about those particular systems US deployed in Poland but, even if you are right (i dunno how you could get the info though, it's not something that can be just googled up i guess, or...?),

See the highlighted portion. You need to do more research...as I said before.

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.

Shahter wrote:

Russia knows all of this, but (like some here), they refuse to acknowledge that publicly because it does not suit their agenda of trying to regain their influence over former satellite states. They do the same thing regarding NATO expansion, NATO basing in former satellite states, military cooperation of those states with the US and NATO, etc. It has nothing to do with an actual national security threat to Russia. It has everything to do with a threat to their agenda and pride.

well, even though i don't agree with you on the intended purpose of those ABM systems, you are, imho, absolutely right about Russia' agenda. so, yeah, we have the balls (and capabilities) to re-establish ourselves internationally - you've got a problem with that? Russia's just let everybody know that next time somebody wants a radar or missile defence system bult next to its borders to protect them from "terrorist attacks" they are going to take Russia' national security interests into consideration. does it stink of another Cald War? - absolutely, no doubt about that. but on the other hand the US waved their dick around far too long, its time to put them in check.

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

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.

FEOS wrote:

.Sup wrote:

Thats what USA says anyway. When they are looking away from US its defensive, when the missiles are looking towards them, they are called "offensive missiles" and must be removed.

Read about it. The physics and numbers simply don't work for it to be a threat to Russia.

No one is saying it is a threat to Russia. It's all about the perceptions of it. This is politics after all. It's just military point scoring. It is obvious that if the US step up missile related presence in Europe, the Russians will do the same. It is also obvious that they won't use defensive technology as it is massively more expensive.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

The only credible nuclear threat there is, is from terrorists. I'll tell you now, terrorists won't be using ICBMs as a nuke delivery system.

You're forgetting Iran (and possibly Syria). It's not just about nukes, it's also about conventional and chem/bio. The threat this is designed to counter are "rogue states" launching small numbers of warheads at Europe. Not just nukes, and not Russia.

I'm not forgetting them. I don't consider them to be credible threats. Not publicly. Behind the scenes supplying terrorists, yes. But not publicly - they'd have to face brutal military reprisals then and they don't want that.

FEOS wrote:

The above views are what happens when you buy into hyperbole without research. I too was concerned when I first heard about it and then I (gasp) read a bit about the systems being installed. They pose ZERO threat to Russia. They pose ZERO threat to MAD. They only pose a threat to one or two warheads inbound to Europe. They CANNOT defeat missiles inbound to the US. They CANNOT defeat missiles in boost phase coming out of Russia (regardless of their destination).

Russia knows all of this, but (like some here), they refuse to acknowledge that publicly because it does not suit their agenda of trying to regain their influence over former satellite states. They do the same thing regarding NATO expansion, NATO basing in former satellite states, military cooperation of those states with the US and NATO, etc. It has nothing to do with an actual national security threat to Russia. It has everything to do with a threat to their agenda and pride.

This program is pointless and extremely expensive (not to mention the low intercept success rate - isn't it still sub-50% for the EKV? (that's without decoys, purely differentiating between the warhead and the launch stages of the rocket using their optical recognition systems)). There is no feasible scenario where it would be of any use whatsoever. Yet loads of money is being pumped into it. This is not what I take exception to. It is the fact that it is clear military escalation right in the Russians face, which is provocative and gives them all sort of excuses to do dodgy stuff, which I bet they're loving.

Russia is an unstable and dangerous place. This sort of pointless provocation is sheer stupidity.

I certainly don't consider this to be an evil ploy by the US threatening anyone. I just think it's unbelievably stupid and a horrendous waste of money.

FEOS wrote:

It's crazy. You people have no issue with baseless fearmongering on the part of Russia, but decry any US mention of any threat anywhere.

If you people are any kind of representative sample of Europe, then the entire continent needs to enter a Double Standards Twelve-Step Program.

No one is buying into the Russians fearmongering. It's obviously political. But this is what people expect from Russia, because their government is full of cunts, with the biggest cunt (Putin) running it all.

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.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-07 05:12:46)

FEOS wrote:

Nobody forced anyone to accept the deal. That's just bunk. If it didn't serve Polish or Czech interests, they wouldn't have done it. It's that simple. Additionally, it's not just for Poland and CR...it's for Europe as a whole. The sites are in Poland and the CR simply because those countries agreed to them. If some other country had agreed to it, they would be there. Whether you agree with the threat or not is irrelevant. Those who are paid to assess threat and take appropriate action to protect their interests have done that and acted accordingly

What a nice world you live in FEOS!

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!!

proof?

google.com

the ones that did ALLOWED them.  fact.  go yell at them and stop your crying.

oh...well then that negates the fact they ALLOWED them.  no wait, it doesn't.  and I am glad you were there so you know what was said behind closed doors and all.  because the media knows everything that happened.