agricola
a genuine importer of owls
The last referendum was 2006, when 98/99% of people voted for independence; obviously given the past history of such overwhelming mandates in that part of the world the poll result was viewed with some suspicion.
America's Aggressive Missile Shield
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
The last referendum was 2006, when 98/99% of people voted for independence; obviously given the past history of such overwhelming mandates in that part of the world the poll result was viewed with some suspicion.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Summary of why they probably won't work ...
http://russianforces.org/files/Brie...efenseProposal_August24,2007_FinalReduced.pdf
http://russianforces.org/files/Brie...efenseProposal_August24,2007_FinalReduced.pdf
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
You have evidence that the vote was invalid?
dylanredefined
Not a house elf a tiger
Russia just pissed that poland wont do what it tells them too anymore .Threats are one thing missle sheild wont stop more than one or two missles at most .Not a problem for russia .
and wreck the Russian economy.
Why can't poland have a missle shield? Who are you to tell Poland they can't defend themselves from possible agression.
Russia is a country that participated with Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian empire in carving up Poland. The great powers of Europe have tried tyo ban the Polish language in the past. No country was more devastated in WWII than Poland. The Soviets murdered thousands of polish officers, they foisted an ideology on Poland which was anathema to their catholic heritage.
Russia feels it has some right to boss these countries around.
Apparently you are of the same opinion.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
I'm sure it won't have any problem selling it elsewhere.
sleaterkinney
Well-Known Member
You raised suspicions about it, do you have anything to back that up or not?. Disliking the result doesn't count.
As far as the US military already being overstretched, am sure if things escalated the US would soon drop the "we're in Afganistan and Iraq to finish the job" stance and would withdraw their troops in the blink of an eye.
Not sure they'd want to fuck with Russian interests mind; it's no longer being the weakened country it was even ten years ago.
Not sure they'd want to fuck with Russian interests mind; it's no longer being the weakened country it was even ten years ago.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Poland is almost irrelevant in this. This is an aggressive move by America against Russia. Poland are just the pawn.
Would America stay silent if Russia installed an advanced anti missile missile base in Cuba? I think not.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
Sorry, I dont have the research to hand - I would have thought the end result combined with a situation where "peacekeepers" are busily distributing passports for their country to anyone who wants one and who have a long and proud history of "99% mandates from the people" was suspicious enough.
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
Yes, I'm sure they can install the necessary pipelines over the weekend.
The Russian economy is not very well diversified and they need our currency every bit as much as we need the gas. Maybe even more.
Because it wouldn't be Poland having a missile shield. It would be Poland siting part of the first layer of the US missile shield, essentially radars and maybe some boost-phase ABMs. The only plus for the Poles is getting some cash out ofthe US for the privilege.Why can't poland have a missle shield? Who are you to tell Poland they can't defend themselves from possible agression.
Russia is a country that participated with Prussia and the Austro-Hungarian empire in carving up Poland. The great powers of Europe have tried tyo ban the Polish language in the past. No country was more devastated in WWII than Poland. The Soviets murdered thousands of polish officers, they foisted an ideology on Poland which was anathema to their catholic heritage.
Russia feels it has some right to boss these countries around.
Apparently you are of the same opinion.
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
Is there any realistic suggestion that this would work anyhow? I got the idea that the whole concept is horrible susceptible to being fooled by basic decoys.
Its pumped in through pipelines, the infrastructure is in place so its not all that easy for the Russians to just go sell the stuff on the open market where Europe could just turn around and buy it anyway.
Poland is a soverign country that votes in their leaders. And they don't want to be pushed around by the Russians.
You may think they are irrelevent but its not the case. Its their country, its not Russia and if Russia had treated them better they may not want a missle shield from the US.
Again kids, poland is a independent free country that now makes its own decisions and can choose its own friends.
Its that choice which pisses the Urban boys off.
All America all the time
DownwardDog
Well-Known Member
I guess that's part of the point to make the NuSovs expend time, money and energy coming up with ways to defeat the shield.
There is almost no detail on what system is being proposed for Poland so it wouldn't surprise me if didn't exist any real sense beyond being a political tool.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
No. The target is Iran (or other possible rogue states from that region of Earth). I agree that it is aggressive, but the target really is Iran. There is no chance that even the BMD bases in Alaska could counter the Russian nuclear arsenal and to suggest that the Polish base is in anyway linked to the Russian threat is just crazy
There's a reason it sounds odd and that is because it simply is not true that the target is Russia. The Russians have 1000s of operational warheads and many more thousands in reserve. It is impossible to defend against that kind of attack. The BMD is designed to intercept a SINGLE missile
Poland may be a pawn in America's plans, but there is no way this can be considered an aggressive move against Russia. It would appear that your comments are based on pure speculation and a "Star Trek" view of missile defence that is far removed from the reality
No it would not stay silent, however, I would make exactly the same comments as I have in response to the Polish base. Russia cannot defend against the American arsenal so there is no way it could be seen as "neutralising" America's missiles. Nor would Russia base missile defences in Cuba to target America's missiles (as America would not base missile defences in Poland to defend against Russian missiles)
It is very susceptible to simple decoys, and I'm not aware of any successful test flights under realistic battlefield conditions (iirc the "successful" test flights were all against a target where the flight path was pre-programmed into the interceptor). However, an easier way to counter missile defences is simply to play the number game - make more missiles. Russia doesn't need to do this as they already have an arsenal that cannot be defended against, but lets say China, with around 100 nukes, assumes that America's missile defence will be 90% successful. In order to maintain the same level of deterrent in real terms, all they would need to do was build 900 more missiles, not a difficult task for a country like China, and rendering America's missile defences irrelevant.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
You missed a pretty obvious (and in my opinion the actual) reason off - to defend against ballistic missiles anyone? How could you possibly miss that one off!?
BMD is aimed at Iran and North Korea, two countries most people on here would agree America wouldn't mind "regime changing". However, they are also two countries that have, or are suspected of wanting, nuclear weapons (in NK's case, they can just about reach the American mainland, altho it'd be a hell of a lucky shot). America cannot invade a country that could wipe out the invading force at the flick of a switch, however, if they can intercept a single, or very small number (which is all NK or Iran would have) then they can invade, and that, imo, is the reason for missile defence
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Does this missile shield work? Have they tested it yet?
If not, it's as useful as putting on a tinfoil hat.
If not, it's as useful as putting on a tinfoil hat.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
They have done successful test flights where the target has been intercepted but I don't think there have been any tests under exact battlefield conditions so it's not known whether it would work or not. I don't think that all the components will be in place for this initial defence system until something like 2012 so perhaps we'll get a better idea then (saying that, Bush declared the system "operational" in 2004!)
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the info. I know that Canada said no to having any part of the system on Canadian soil.
I went a-googling and found this
http://www.avantnews.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=342
Yah - like they are gonna be able to track migratory birds and feed this data into their master computer.
Maybe they can share this information with the airline industry - lord know the damage birds create on a regular basis.
spring-peeper
Well-Known Member
Check this bad boy out then!
I just imagine Bush throwing a paddy fit one day to his generals saying "all I want is planes with frickin laser beams, somebody throw me a bone"!
Totally awesome!!!
Over here, the airports been falcons and the like around to deter the birds. My first thought on this was of the Americans training falcons to keep the shields field clear of all disruptive birds.
Meh - it was not a complete loss. The article says that the missle system shot the bird and disintergrated it.
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
Yeah, but you're talking about two diferent things -
1. Defence against the classic Cold War scenario of a general massive exchange of ICBMs
2. Theatre - strategic defence i.e. 'Patriot' type systems.
What's proposed and causing all the trouble is 1.
These systems, as has been mentioned before, don't even begin to address cruise missiles or close launched SLBMs, let alone any unconventional deliveries such as disguised weapons in, say, container ships or tankers.
Would it be too James Bond to imagine a dastardly plan where 2 or 3 nukes - which can, lets not forget, be smaller than an office water cooler - are placed at key points and the button pressed?
Central London, the White House and NATO HQ?
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
If I was Polish, I'd want some kind of protection from the Russians.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
On the efficacy of current US AMDs...no one knows. The stuff that's been released indicates a functional, if hugely unwieldly system that would work as advertised were it only to be faced with about a dozen or so MIRVs. What this says to me is:
1. They've got a working system
2. It's somewhere between what's been released and much less/more capable than advertised.
3. Anti ship-ship systems work well. These are the basis for the AMD systems.
Don't forget, this is a nation that, while being leaky as hell, managed to keep the B2 and Nighthawk out of the public's eye for at least a decade. Add to that the USMs own shuttle(Atlantis) and it's an area of speculation at all levels, aside from the way it's annoying the Russians.
1. They've got a working system
2. It's somewhere between what's been released and much less/more capable than advertised.
3. Anti ship-ship systems work well. These are the basis for the AMD systems.
Don't forget, this is a nation that, while being leaky as hell, managed to keep the B2 and Nighthawk out of the public's eye for at least a decade. Add to that the USMs own shuttle(Atlantis) and it's an area of speculation at all levels, aside from the way it's annoying the Russians.
newharper
Manxome Tove
Gary Larson.
Unnessessary posturing for the domestic market is not always the smartest move for small powers.
Similar threads
- Poll
