I think the best thing would be a true shield - something like the Firestorm defense system from Command and Conquer.
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.Shahter wrote:
i'm trying to get this point across to FEOS for i dunno how many posts already, but he keeps ignoring it .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.
@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.
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.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...
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.
Really? You seem to equate MRBM's and interceptor missiles as the same thing.Braddock wrote:
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.Shahter wrote:
i'm trying to get this point across to FEOS for i dunno how many posts already, but he keeps ignoring it .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.
@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.
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?Commie Killer wrote:
Really? You seem to equate MRBM's and interceptor missiles as the same thing.Braddock wrote:
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.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.
"No, no, seriously... they can only fire small 'defensive' missiles".
Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-11 13:50:26)
We did offer to help them construct one remember?Braddock wrote:
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?Commie Killer wrote:
Really? You seem to equate MRBM's and interceptor missiles as the same thing.Braddock wrote:
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.
"No, no, seriously... they can only fire small 'defensive' missiles".
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.Commie Killer wrote:
We did offer to help them construct one remember?Braddock wrote:
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?Commie Killer wrote:
Really? You seem to equate MRBM's and interceptor missiles as the same thing.
"No, no, seriously... they can only fire small 'defensive' missiles".
Why exactly does it have to be on the Russian border again?
Anyone?Braddock wrote:
Why exactly does it have to be on the Russian border again?
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.Braddock wrote:
Anyone?Braddock wrote:
Why exactly does it have to be on the Russian border again?
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.PureFodder wrote:
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.Braddock wrote:
Anyone?Braddock wrote:
Why exactly does it have to be on the Russian border again?
So again, why on the Russian border?
Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-11 16:43:06)
Im sorry. But I cant help but lol at this.PureFodder wrote:
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.Commie Killer wrote:
We did offer to help them construct one remember?Braddock wrote:
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".
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.Commie Killer wrote:
Im sorry. But I cant help but lol at this.PureFodder wrote:
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.Commie Killer wrote:
We did offer to help them construct one remember?
Last edited by Braddock (2008-11-11 17:22:53)
I think the Irish want one too.
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?Braddock wrote:
Can somebody please explain to me why the missile system has to be placed on the Russian border?
(Neither Poland nor the CR share a border with Russia proper).
Last edited by FEOS (2008-11-11 19:10:35)
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
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.
FEOS, hellooo? you keep ignoring this argument through this whole discussion. answer, let's settle this already .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.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
US has always spent more money on Euro defence than Europe lolPureFodder wrote:
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.Braddock wrote:
Anyone?Braddock wrote:
Why exactly does it have to be on the Russian border again?
Wasn't Russia invited to participate?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.FEOS, hellooo? you keep ignoring this argument through this whole discussion. answer, let's settle this already .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.
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?"
Xbone Stormsurgezz
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.Kmarion wrote:
Wasn't Russia invited to participate?
anyway, Russia's Radar Cooperation Plan, Azerbaijan. how's that?
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? … p;aid=8564Commie Killer wrote:
Im sorry. But I cant help but lol at this.PureFodder wrote:
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.Commie Killer wrote:
We did offer to help them construct one remember?
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.
If Iranial leadership does suddenly decide to go nuts and launch an attack, despite the obvious vapourization that would occur as the US retaliates, does anyone at all think that their plan would involve launching missiles at southern Europe or would it look a little more like this?
It seems as though this shield would only be useful in the role it's supposed to have if Iran was lead by a suicidal alzheimer's sufferer who either forgot about Israel or couldn't rember where it's located.
It seems as though this shield would only be useful in the role it's supposed to have if Iran was lead by a suicidal alzheimer's sufferer who either forgot about Israel or couldn't rember where it's located.
Panama doesn't have any 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.FEOS, hellooo? you keep ignoring this argument through this whole discussion. answer, let's settle this already .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.
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.
“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
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
well, i rest my case.FEOS wrote:
And I said already it wouldn't be an issue.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.
you do live in an wonderfull world, FEOS. i'm completely jealous.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
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?