Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 15

 

2008-11-14 04:00:51
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:


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.
Show that they do.

And it's ultimately irrelevant. When you plan for the most dangerous COA, you plan for what's possible. Just like everyone (who understood MAD, btw) did during the Cold War.

And before someone tries to jump on that as a change of direction, it's not. Notice I said "what's possible". It is not possible for those missiles to pose a threat to Russia's nuclear deterrent capability.

PureFodder wrote:

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.
Dangerous to India's population...not dangerous to US or European national interests.

PureFodder wrote:

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.
No, I'm not. Iran IS developing better missiles. Those countries in South American don't have any missiles to begin with.

PureFodder wrote:

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.
Remove "going crazy and" and "for no apparent reason". There's always a reason, if it happens...and it normally does not involve insanity.

PureFodder wrote:

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.
And if they are, this system would protect against a handful of them...as has been previously stated in this thread. But you said Russia and the US firing missiles at each other.
“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
2008-11-14 04:56:27
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6977|Moscow, Russia
@PureFodder
dude, don't bother with FEOS - the guy's as dense as a fucking turd. with Iran, he says, it pefectly normal to consider "what's possible" because, somehow, they are too dumb in there to understand what MAD principal is about. with US, however, that would be nonsensial.
in another post he says that those "ABM systems won't alter the regional balance one yota" - but now he admits that those "would be able to protect against a handful of those [missiles]", but, still, Russia deploying that additional "hadful" to compensate is over-reacting somehow.

the guy's completely out of his mind. really, don't bother.

Last edited by Shahter (2008-11-14 05:04:09)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2008-11-14 07:01:09
PureFodder
Member
+225|6487
The most dangerous COA for Russia. The US develops Alaskan and Canadian missile shields to the level where they can can be almost certain to block a retaliatory strike. The European system blocks retatiatory strikes against US allies and US military bases in Europe. The US then decide to launch a first strike attack on Russia to knock out the bulk of their cities and nuclear capability, the weakened retaliatory strike is blocked by the missiles shields. Even worse, UK/France/Israel attack Russia too under the protection of the shield.

Missile shields facilitate the firsts strike attack. Russia therefore are going to get stroppy about any development of missile shields.

Also, just bacause you don't know of any S.American missiles that exist or are in development, doesn't mean that there aren't any or aren't going to be any.
2008-11-14 15:53:32
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

@PureFodder
dude, don't bother with FEOS - the guy's as dense as a fucking turd. with Iran, he says, it pefectly normal to consider "what's possible" because, somehow, they are too dumb in there to understand what MAD principal is about. with US, however, that would be nonsensial.
in another post he says that those "ABM systems won't alter the regional balance one yota" - but now he admits that those "would be able to protect against a handful of those [missiles]", but, still, Russia deploying that additional "hadful" to compensate is over-reacting somehow.

the guy's completely out of his mind. really, don't bother.
You can't substantiate your argument, so this is the best you can come up with?

Go back to school, sonny. It may help you learn to read and comprehend...something you clearly don't have the capacity for right now.

Let me make it as clear as possible for you...though it will be difficult to deconstruct this issue down to terms simplistic enough for you to understand.

1. The ABMs in Europe don't alter the balance of power vis a vis Russia and the US one bit.
    - They can't intercept Russian missiles heading for the US
2. The ABMs in Europe (10) could stop one, maybe two warheads. Warheads heading for Europe.
    - Russia's current inventory of missiles, in their current locations, are far more than enough to overcome the ABM system if they chose to attack Europe.
3. You have no problem with air defense systems in those countries that could stop far more Russian aircraft heading for Europe.
    - Yet you have issue with a similar system that can stop a couple of inbound warheads.
4. I never said Iran is too dumb for anything. If you can find anywhere in this thread (or any other) where I have said anything remotely like that, please post it.
5. I clearly differentiated between the "what's possible" with Iran and your "what's possible" with Russia, knowing you would (incorrectly) jump on that. But clearly you didn't bother to actually read what I wrote. I'll go ahead and post it here for you:

FEOS very clearly wrote:

And before someone tries to jump on that as a change of direction, it's not. Notice I said "what's possible". It is not possible for those missiles to pose a threat to Russia's nuclear deterrent capability.
See? I even highlighted the critical difference for you to make it easier. You've got physics and orbital dynamics working against you. You simply will not win that argument.

In fact, while building this response, I realized you didn't even bother to read my response to PureFodder before posting (or chose to ignore its content). Not surprising in the least.
“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
2008-11-14 15:57:45
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

The most dangerous COA for Russia. The US develops Alaskan and Canadian missile shields to the level where they can can be almost certain to block a retaliatory strike. The European system blocks retatiatory strikes against US allies and US military bases in Europe. The US then decide to launch a first strike attack on Russia to knock out the bulk of their cities and nuclear capability, the weakened retaliatory strike is blocked by the missiles shields. Even worse, UK/France/Israel attack Russia too under the protection of the shield.
That is decades away, at best. There is no intent for a Canadian missile shield, either.

You might as well make up more stuff that is unrelated to the issue and call it "the most dangerous COA for Russia". Sharks with frickin' "lasers" on their heads, maybe?

Here's actually the most dangerous COA for Russia:

ABM system gets built and installed in Europe. Then NATO starts installing more missiles. And it starts building more, bigger radars. And the US starts doing the same in Alaska and California. Those are clear indicators that the US and NATO intentions have changed. Without indicators that anything is going that direction, it's pure fantasy.

PureFodder wrote:

Missile shields facilitate the firsts strike attack. Russia therefore are going to get stroppy about any development of missile shields.
Only if they stand any chance of stopping the relatiatory strike...which these don't. Neither do Russia's by the way. Which could be why nobody from the West is squawking about those.

PureFodder wrote:

Also, just bacause you don't know of any S.American missiles that exist or are in development, doesn't mean that there aren't any or aren't going to be any.
You act as if my understanding of that situation is casual or passing in nature. Bad assumption.
“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
2008-11-15 00:46:02
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6977|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

You can't substantiate your argument, so this is the best you can come up with?
i don't need to substabtiate my argument any further - against yours anyway. i made my points and you haven't defeated a single one.
and i wasn't addressing you at all with my previous post, btw. so fuck off already.

@other readers:
the point that's beeing continuosly missed in this thread, is that it doesn't matter at all what king of missile defence is being installed next to Russia's borders. wether Russia beleave US at their word that it's not ment to be used against them (which they shouldn't, because it could be) or not is utterly irrelevant, because all this installation really is - it's an attempt to establish a precedent. if today Russia ignore this small installation, tomorrow they'd think it's okay to build a bigger one.
so, the actual threat posed by these ABM systems to Russia's national security is of course minimal. however, from political side this is an issue nonetheless, and Russia, imho, are absolutely right in making their position in this so abundantly clear - next time somebody tries to build a military installation next to Russia's borders, they'd better consider the consequences.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2008-11-15 03:17:37
PureFodder
Member
+225|6487

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

The most dangerous COA for Russia. The US develops Alaskan and Canadian missile shields to the level where they can can be almost certain to block a retaliatory strike. The European system blocks retatiatory strikes against US allies and US military bases in Europe. The US then decide to launch a first strike attack on Russia to knock out the bulk of their cities and nuclear capability, the weakened retaliatory strike is blocked by the missiles shields. Even worse, UK/France/Israel attack Russia too under the protection of the shield.
That is decades away, at best. There is no intent for a Canadian missile shield, either.

You might as well make up more stuff that is unrelated to the issue and call it "the most dangerous COA for Russia". Sharks with frickin' "lasers" on their heads, maybe?

Here's actually the most dangerous COA for Russia:

ABM system gets built and installed in Europe. Then NATO starts installing more missiles. And it starts building more, bigger radars. And the US starts doing the same in Alaska and California. Those are clear indicators that the US and NATO intentions have changed. Without indicators that anything is going that direction, it's pure fantasy.
How is this not step one in that process?

Iran developing missiles that can hit most of Europe and then deciding to launch them knowing full well that the response will end their own country is pure fantasy.

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Missile shields facilitate the firsts strike attack. Russia therefore are going to get stroppy about any development of missile shields.
Only if they stand any chance of stopping the relatiatory strike...which these don't. Neither do Russia's by the way. Which could be why nobody from the West is squawking about those.

PureFodder wrote:

Also, just bacause you don't know of any S.American missiles that exist or are in development, doesn't mean that there aren't any or aren't going to be any.
You act as if my understanding of that situation is casual or passing in nature. Bad assumption.
You act although the US intelligence is infallible. Bad assumption.
2008-11-15 09:29:55
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

You can't substantiate your argument, so this is the best you can come up with?
i don't need to substabtiate my argument any further - against yours anyway. i made my points and you haven't defeated a single one.
and i wasn't addressing you at all with my previous post, btw. so fuck off already.
You saying you have doesn't make it so. Having a valid argument to show the threat posed to Russia does. You simply haven't done that.

Shahter wrote:

@other readers:
the point that's beeing continuosly missed in this thread, is that it doesn't matter at all what king of missile defence is being installed next to Russia's borders. wether Russia beleave US at their word that it's not ment to be used against them (which they shouldn't, because it could be) or not is utterly irrelevant, because all this installation really is - it's an attempt to establish a precedent. if today Russia ignore this small installation, tomorrow they'd think it's okay to build a bigger one.
so, the actual threat posed by these ABM systems to Russia's national security is of course minimal. however, from political side this is an issue nonetheless, and Russia, imho, are absolutely right in making their position in this so abundantly clear - next time somebody tries to build a military installation next to Russia's borders, they'd better consider the consequences.
Well then why in fucking hell were you arguing so hard for the opposite position? We agreed early on that there is a political aspect to this. FFS, you need to up your meds.

What consequences? Russia saber-rattling? How the hell is that "consequences"? Has it in any way slowed or stopped the installation? No, not one bit.
“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
2008-11-15 09:34:04
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

The most dangerous COA for Russia. The US develops Alaskan and Canadian missile shields to the level where they can can be almost certain to block a retaliatory strike. The European system blocks retatiatory strikes against US allies and US military bases in Europe. The US then decide to launch a first strike attack on Russia to knock out the bulk of their cities and nuclear capability, the weakened retaliatory strike is blocked by the missiles shields. Even worse, UK/France/Israel attack Russia too under the protection of the shield.
That is decades away, at best. There is no intent for a Canadian missile shield, either.

You might as well make up more stuff that is unrelated to the issue and call it "the most dangerous COA for Russia". Sharks with frickin' "lasers" on their heads, maybe?

Here's actually the most dangerous COA for Russia:

ABM system gets built and installed in Europe. Then NATO starts installing more missiles. And it starts building more, bigger radars. And the US starts doing the same in Alaska and California. Those are clear indicators that the US and NATO intentions have changed. Without indicators that anything is going that direction, it's pure fantasy.
How is this not step one in that process?
It's step one in lots of processes...to include one that poses no danger whatsoever to Russia. That's why you have to look at much more than this single thing to come to a realistic mission analysis.

PureFodder wrote:

Iran developing missiles that can hit most of Europe and then deciding to launch them knowing full well that the response will end their own country is pure fantasy.
There's nothing fantastic about it. No more than any other threat that has been planned for by others in the past.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Missile shields facilitate the firsts strike attack. Russia therefore are going to get stroppy about any development of missile shields.
Only if they stand any chance of stopping the relatiatory strike...which these don't. Neither do Russia's by the way. Which could be why nobody from the West is squawking about those.

PureFodder wrote:

Also, just bacause you don't know of any S.American missiles that exist or are in development, doesn't mean that there aren't any or aren't going to be any.
You act as if my understanding of that situation is casual or passing in nature. Bad assumption.
You act although the US intelligence is infallible. Bad assumption.
You act as if you are speaking from a position of experience on that topic. Bad assumption.

Also, it's not just intel. There are mil-to-mil relationships between the US and South American countries.
“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
2008-11-15 12:15:33
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6977|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Well then why in fucking hell were you arguing so hard for the opposite position?

Shahter wrote:

The threat posed by it is mostly political...

Shahter wrote:

i DON'T defend Russia position in this - it's undoubtedly politics, national security being brought in as an excuse mostly.

Shahter wrote:

EVERYTHING is politics in this incedent, BOTH sides are using their national security as an excuse.
so, unlimately, the only thing you said i'm speaking against (missile defense systems and their capabilities not counted) is that Russia response to those installations in Poland and CR was completely uncalled-for.
these quotes are from this same thread.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

next time somebody tries to build a military installation next to Russia's borders, they'd better consider the consequences.
What consequences?
Cold
War
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2008-11-15 13:19:25
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

Then just why the hell were you arguing about the national security threat posed by the ABM system? Just to be argumentative?

Shahter wrote:

Cold
War
Consequences are only bad if you lose.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-11-15 13:20:14)

“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
2008-11-16 00:28:17
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6977|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Then just why the hell were you arguing about the national security threat posed by the ABM system?
because there is a threat, damnit - it is minimal, but it IS there. is it enough of a threat to be actually consened about Russia's national security? - i honestly can't say. but it's STILL a threat, and it SHOULD be acted upon. if in 2001 - and i'm sorry to mention this again - before the horrible incident i'd told you that terrorists would be attacking US from the air you'd be probably laughing your ass off at me. would you still be laughing after?
i will say this again - people in charge of national security aren't supposed to take ANY chances, however minimal those may look.

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Cold
War
Consequences are only bad if you lose.
everybody loses in a Cold War.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2008-11-16 05:37:29
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Then just why the hell were you arguing about the national security threat posed by the ABM system?
because there is a threat, damnit - it is minimal, but it IS there. is it enough of a threat to be actually consened about Russia's national security? - i honestly can't say. but it's STILL a threat, and it SHOULD be acted upon. if in 2001 - and i'm sorry to mention this again - before the horrible incident i'd told you that terrorists would be attacking US from the air you'd be probably laughing your ass off at me. would you still be laughing after?
i will say this again - people in charge of national security aren't supposed to take ANY chances, however minimal those may look.
Actually, the people in charge of national defense are supposed to do just that...because they do not have unconstrained resources with which to prepare defenses. It's about risk management (vulnerability + threat = risk). In this case, there is no threat to Russia's national security: They have no vulnerability (as you already stated) and there is no threat...that equates to zero risk.

In the case of 9/11, there was a threat, but the vulnerability was relatively unknown, hence the risk was indeterminate. See how that works?

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Cold
War
Consequences are only bad if you lose.
everybody loses in a Cold War.
I'm pretty sure somebody won the last one.
“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
2008-11-16 07:14:59
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6783|SE London

FEOS wrote:

1. The ABMs in Europe don't alter the balance of power vis a vis Russia and the US one bit.
    - They can't intercept Russian missiles heading for the US
2. The ABMs in Europe (10) could stop one, maybe two warheads. Warheads heading for Europe.
    - Russia's current inventory of missiles, in their current locations, are far more than enough to overcome the ABM system if they chose to attack Europe.
3. You have no problem with air defense systems in those countries that could stop far more Russian aircraft heading for Europe.
    - Yet you have issue with a similar system that can stop a couple of inbound warheads.
So, the ABMs in Europe could potentially stop a handful of Russian missiles inbound to Europe.

Yet you have a problem with Russia deploying a handful of extra missiles that would mean the status quo is preserved.



Genuine question: Do you support the establishment of the ABM sites in Europe? If so why?

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Consequences are only bad if you lose.
everybody loses in a Cold War.
I'm pretty sure somebody won the last one.
No one won it. Some lost less than others, which is exactly his point.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2008-11-16 07:16:53)

2008-11-16 08:01:34
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

1. The ABMs in Europe don't alter the balance of power vis a vis Russia and the US one bit.
    - They can't intercept Russian missiles heading for the US
2. The ABMs in Europe (10) could stop one, maybe two warheads. Warheads heading for Europe.
    - Russia's current inventory of missiles, in their current locations, are far more than enough to overcome the ABM system if they chose to attack Europe.
3. You have no problem with air defense systems in those countries that could stop far more Russian aircraft heading for Europe.
    - Yet you have issue with a similar system that can stop a couple of inbound warheads.
So, the ABMs in Europe could potentially stop a handful of Russian missiles inbound to Europe.

Yet you have a problem with Russia deploying a handful of extra missiles that would mean the status quo is preserved.
Russia can deploy whatever they want wherever they want. But for them to say it's because this system poses any kind of a threat to their nuclear capability is utter nonsense. And they know it...they just hope nobody bothers to learn anything about it and take their line without inspection. Which is exactly what a few here have done.

Bertster7 wrote:

Genuine question: Do you support the establishment of the ABM sites in Europe? If so why?
Not particularly--unless those benefiting from it pay for it. I just take issue with the "ZOMG new cold war cuz MAD doesn't work now" bullshit.

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

everybody loses in a Cold War.
I'm pretty sure somebody won the last one.
No one won it. Some lost less than others, which is exactly his point.
Hmmm...you must've lived through a different 90's than I did.

Last edited by FEOS (2008-11-16 08:03:18)

“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
2008-11-16 08:06:39
wiru-will
o<| :3
+13|6200|wat

DoctaStrangelove wrote:

cowami wrote:

God Save the Queen wrote:

nuke em
note to self: reserve spot in vault-tec vault
I call Vault 69.
I call Vault 9001, once they build it...
2008-11-16 08:16:02
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6783|SE London

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

1. The ABMs in Europe don't alter the balance of power vis a vis Russia and the US one bit.
    - They can't intercept Russian missiles heading for the US
2. The ABMs in Europe (10) could stop one, maybe two warheads. Warheads heading for Europe.
    - Russia's current inventory of missiles, in their current locations, are far more than enough to overcome the ABM system if they chose to attack Europe.
3. You have no problem with air defense systems in those countries that could stop far more Russian aircraft heading for Europe.
    - Yet you have issue with a similar system that can stop a couple of inbound warheads.
So, the ABMs in Europe could potentially stop a handful of Russian missiles inbound to Europe.

Yet you have a problem with Russia deploying a handful of extra missiles that would mean the status quo is preserved.
Russia can deploy whatever they want wherever they want. But for them to say it's because this system poses any kind of a threat to their nuclear capability is utter nonsense. And they know it...they just hope nobody bothers to learn anything about it and take their line without inspection. Which is exactly what a few here have done.
Obviously that is the case, it's clearly no real threat to Russia. It's an excuse for them to flex their political muscles. That's about all. But it's never very wise to antagonise the Russians, especially not with Putin in de facto control of the country.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Genuine question: Do you support the establishment of the ABM sites in Europe? If so why?
Not particularly--unless those benefiting from it pay for it. I just take issue with the "ZOMG new cold war cuz MAD doesn't work now" bullshit.
I agree it poses no theat to MAD. It does piss the Russians off though, whether justifiably or not, I would argue this is too high a price to pay for expensive and unreliable ABM technology with very few practical uses.

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:


I'm pretty sure somebody won the last one.
No one won it. Some lost less than others, which is exactly his point.
Hmmm...you must've lived through a different 90's than I did.
So how did anyone benefit from the Cold War?
2008-11-16 08:58:06
GC_PaNzerFIN
Work and study @ Technical Uni
+528|6616|Finland

Russia... big bad bully next to Finland and the reason why I'm in mandatory armed service....
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
2008-11-16 11:56:37
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:


No one won it. Some lost less than others, which is exactly his point.
Hmmm...you must've lived through a different 90's than I did.
So how did anyone benefit from the Cold War?
Now you've changed the argument. You said nobody won it. Clearly somebody did (not the USSR).

Many have benefited from Cold War developments (to include the space race)...the internet is one example.
“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
2008-11-17 00:26:17
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6308|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

In the case of 9/11, there was a threat, but the vulnerability was relatively unknown, hence the risk was indeterminate.
Not really, it was known AQ planned to hijack aircraft and use them for various purposes, one being spreading biological weapons, the other as missiles.
The risk was precise, the vulnerability obvious - spreading anthrax over a city would have been a whole lot bigger than 9/11 - nothing was done about it, see how that works?

ABMs were covered by the ABM treaty, which Duhbya unilaterally withdrew the US from.

The US withdrew from an arms control treaty and started deploying weapon systems previously covered by that treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Balli … ile_Treaty
This happened in 2002, Saddam is bad guy, mkay?, and has nothing to do with Iran's missile developments today.

You can argue the details all you like, the Russians are entirely justified in being pissed.
As usual the US, and FEOS, need to STFU and stop being dicks.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-11-17 00:27:51)

Fuck Israel
2008-11-17 01:03:18
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6977|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Actually, the people in charge of national defense are supposed to do just that...because they do not have unconstrained resources with which to prepare defenses. It's about risk management (vulnerability + threat = risk). In this case, there is no threat to Russia's national security: They have no vulnerability (as you already stated) and there is no threat...that equates to zero risk.
well, you military dudes are all the same - you only recognize something as "threat" or "vulnerability" if it can be measured by destructive power of your weapons or defensive potence of your armor. "saber rattling" as you call it, is as important to national security of any country as its actual military capabilities. really, if i convince everybody around me that i've balls of tungsten nobody in their right mind will try to kick me in the groin - that is exactly what US/NATO are doing now because, as it's been already mentioned here, there are no missles in ME that could actually reach EU atm. why is it wrong for Russia to flex their muscle in response to this "pointless" installation by doing equally "pointless" things?

oh, yeah, i remember what you answered in response to that - ME are suppesedly developing new missiles that US expect to be ready by the time those ABM systems are operational. fine, let's pretend i actually buy into that: so, US are deploying stuff in advance - why shoudn't Russia? because tomorrow US might decide that ME are now developing countermeasures for their missiles that could effectively overwhelm those ABM systems which are only capable of intercepting "a handful of very simple missiles" and install other - probably more potent - missile defense, and THAT could be threatening to Russia. see how that works?

FEOS wrote:

I'm pretty sure somebody won the last one.
as much as you may want to beleave that US actually won that "war" it's not true at all. if anything, Cold War was holding USSR together, not tearing it apart. i've made a long post somewhere in D&ST forums about the collapse of USSR - you could read that if you are interested in the opinion from "the other side".
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2008-11-17 03:56:04
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

In the case of 9/11, there was a threat, but the vulnerability was relatively unknown, hence the risk was indeterminate.
Not really, it was known AQ planned to hijack aircraft and use them for various purposes, one being spreading biological weapons, the other as missiles.
The risk was precise, the vulnerability obvious - spreading anthrax over a city would have been a whole lot bigger than 9/11 - nothing was done about it, see how that works?
I know exactly how it works. And from what you typed, you clearly don't.

The threat was that AQ would use aircraft in some manner. The vulnerability they would exploit was unknown--was it commercial aviation, was it general aviation, what would be targeted, etc. Hence, the threat was known, but the vulnerability was unknown, therefore, the risk was indeterminate.

That's how it works.

Dilbert_X wrote:

ABMs were covered by the ABM treaty, which Duhbya unilaterally withdrew the US from.

The US withdrew from an arms control treaty and started deploying weapon systems previously covered by that treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Balli … ile_Treaty
This happened in 2002, Saddam is bad guy, mkay?, and has nothing to do with Iran's missile developments today.

You can argue the details all you like, the Russians are entirely justified in being pissed.
As usual the US, and FEOS, need to STFU and stop being dicks.
Now you are somehow linking this particular installation to the 2002 withdrawal. The 2002 withdrawal was focused primarily on North Korea and setting up an ABM shield for the US proper. This installation came along later, as the technology matured and Iran's missile development became more of a concern.

But I guess seeing that would require thinking more than 1mm deep on a particular subject.
“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
2008-11-17 04:02:16
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6613|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Actually, the people in charge of national defense are supposed to do just that...because they do not have unconstrained resources with which to prepare defenses. It's about risk management (vulnerability + threat = risk). In this case, there is no threat to Russia's national security: They have no vulnerability (as you already stated) and there is no threat...that equates to zero risk.
well, you military dudes are all the same - you only recognize something as "threat" or "vulnerability" if it can be measured by destructive power of your weapons or defensive potence of your armor. "saber rattling" as you call it, is as important to national security of any country as its actual military capabilities. really, if i convince everybody around me that i've balls of tungsten nobody in their right mind will try to kick me in the groin - that is exactly what US/NATO are doing now because, as it's been already mentioned here, there are no missles in ME that could actually reach EU atm. why is it wrong for Russia to flex their muscle in response to this "pointless" installation by doing equally "pointless" things?
You have no idea what you are talking about. This is getting "pointless".

There are basically four elements of national power: diplomatic, informational, military, and economic. All four are at play here.

But you already agreed with me on this...why are you still arguing?

Shahter wrote:

oh, yeah, i remember what you answered in response to that - ME are suppesedly developing new missiles that US expect to be ready by the time those ABM systems are operational. fine, let's pretend i actually buy into that: so, US are deploying stuff in advance - why shoudn't Russia? because tomorrow US might decide that ME are now developing countermeasures for their missiles that could effectively overwhelm those ABM systems which are only capable of intercepting "a handful of very simple missiles" and install other - probably more potent - missile defense, and THAT could be threatening to Russia. see how that works?
So Russia is deploying stuff in advance because of the missiles being developed by Iran?

Ten missiles and the radar can only intercept 2-3 inbound warheads. If/when NATO/US starts installing more missile launchers and/or upgrading the radar system to do more than that...then come back with your argument.

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I'm pretty sure somebody won the last one.
as much as you may want to beleave that US actually won that "war" it's not true at all. if anything, Cold War was holding USSR together, not tearing it apart. i've made a long post somewhere in D&ST forums about the collapse of USSR - you could read that if you are interested in the opinion from "the other side".
Let's see...the US and the USSR entered into the Cold War. Only the US came out of it. Pretty unambiguous.
“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
2008-11-17 04:22:01
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6308|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

The threat was that AQ would use aircraft in some manner. The vulnerability they would exploit was unknown--was it commercial aviation, was it general aviation, what would be targeted, etc. Hence, the threat was known, but the vulnerability was unknown, therefore, the risk was indeterminate.
Nevertheless your govt chose to do absolutely nothing about a known and definite threat, which makes all this excitement about a non-existent Iranian threat all the more ridiculous and unlikely.

FEOS wrote:

Now you are somehow linking this particular installation to the 2002 withdrawal. The 2002 withdrawal was focused primarily on North Korea and setting up an ABM shield for the US proper. This installation came along later, as the technology matured and Iran's missile development became more of a concern.
Like I said, you can argue about the detail all you like, its pointless.

Bottomline is:
US unilaterally withdrew from a treaty controlling ABMs
US unilaterally starts planting ABMs around the place - which would have breached said treaty if it were still in place - to counter a threat which doesn't exist.
Russians are suspicious and pissed off.

It would be a whole lot easier if the US could just stop being dickheads.
Fuck Israel
2008-11-17 04:26:05
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6977|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

There are basically four elements of national power: diplomatic, informational, military, and economic. All four are at play here.

But you already agreed with me on this...why are you still arguing?
so, all four are at play here? that includes military, right? so, you agree with me on that - why are YOU still arguing?

FEOS wrote:

Ten missiles and the radar can only intercept 2-3 inbound warheads. If/when NATO/US starts installing more missile launchers and/or upgrading the radar system to do more than that...then come back with your argument.
if there was anything in ME that could actually be shot down by those ABM systems (from where it's being installed), some of your arguments might actually have some weight.

FEOS wrote:

Let's see...the US and the USSR entered into the Cold War. Only the US came out of it. Pretty unambiguous.
let's see: it was long before USSR collapse that Cold War actually ended. so, both US and USSR came out of it. try again.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.

 

Pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 15

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard