Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

America's Aggressive Missile Shield

Yeah, but you're talking about two diferent things -

1. Defence against the classic Cold War scenario of a general massive exchange of ICBMs
There is no such defence against this kind of threat. However, they are trying to create a defence against not a "general massive exchange" but a single missile (which is all a rogue state would probably have)

2. Theatre - strategic defence i.e. 'Patriot' type systems.
Well strategic is what you refer to above, and theatre is more on the short distance like what regional neighbours might use. Tactical is the shortest range and more likely to be used in battlefield conditions (eg Scud missiles). The interceptor bases will contain Patriot missiles (PAC-3) but it doesn't really matter what kind of missile brand they are.

What's proposed and causing all the trouble is 1.
No it's not in the slightest

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.
No they don't defend against cruise missiles (or more likely, UAVs modified to carry a payload and effectively become a poor-man's cruise missile) and this should probably be a higher priority especially as missile defence was ushered in in the wake of 9/11. And as you brought submarines into the equation that's even more proof that this missile defence shield is not aimed at Russia in the slightest

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?
Sorry but what's your point here?
 
America's expanding of its strategic missile shield with a proposed base in Poland is an aggressive move designed to convert it's own nuclear ICBMs from tit for tat weapons into first strike weapons targetting Russia, negating Russia's own missiles and thus removing the MAD balance that has long been the cause of peace and balance.

What a complete load of bollocks. The US is not converting ICBMs to use in the BMD programme, it's using a combination of kinetic weapons and traditional conventional rockets. Maybe you should have read something about the programme first?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agency
 
What a complete load of bollocks. The US is not converting ICBMs to use in the BMD programme, it's using a combination of kinetic weapons and traditional conventional rockets. Maybe you should have read something about the programme first?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agency
I took what he meant to mean alter the status of their nuclear arsenal from a deterrent to an offensive weapon (ie he thinks that BMD will intercept 1000s of Russian missiles thereby allowing America to launch their own nuclear missiles safe in the knowledge Russian ones won't find their way through). However you interpret it, you first sentence would remain valid :D
 
What a complete load of bollocks. The US is not converting ICBMs to use in the BMD programme, it's using a combination of kinetic weapons and traditional conventional rockets. Maybe you should have read something about the programme first?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agency

I think you misunderstand. America's ICBMs are not at the moment first strike weapons because a first strike causes immediate retaliation by Russia so they cannot be used in this guise. If however you have a missile shield which cancels Russia's ICBMs out, then America's ICBMs suddenly become first strike weapons. i.e. America can use them first and with impunity.

Now the missile shield as it is now will obviously not grant them this immunity to use their ICBMs but make no mistake, this is what they are working towards and was the "star wars" dream of Reagan.
 
THe MX system is a first strike weapon, which is why it was so controversial when Raygun approved it's deployment in the 1980s. Trident, while technically tasked to the counterstrike role is, like all SLBMs, a first strike option.

Fisrt strike simply means you hit them first. The doctrine on the subject is to use counterstrike forces to degrade enemy response capability (i.e. blow as many of their missile sites as possible), then either sue for peace terms or esclate to non-military targets.

'First strike' doesn't mean 'use without fear of retaliation', which you seem to think. It simply means using weapons platforms fast enough to deliver bombs before your enemy can get their main force away.
 
Do you not accept that if the missile shield was capable of dealing with hundreds or more Russian missiles that America would have carte blanche to fire its own missiles with relative impunity?
 
No, simply because such a system would simply lead to an escalation in delivery technolgy, or simply change the balance of power somewhere else.

Maybe the Russians or Chinese would start work on Orbital mass drivers, where you accelerate a lump of rock to say 10,000 mph and fire it at a city. Any BMD that used kinetic or explosive methods would potentially be inviting wider scale damage because of scattered debris. Or, as many suspect already exist, you could simply use an orbital missile platform, float your missiles dierctly over target and get them launched and down before any AMD shield can react effectively - indeed, knocking out the C&C structure for the BMD system would be a priority in such a scenario.

SDI, BMD, whatever you want to call it, is the latest development in the long standing battle between offensive and defensive weapons, and it's one that ultimately offensive weapons always win in the long term. You have to look at missile defence in the same way.

There has been no point in history where someone has built a defence that cannot be defeated, circumvented or otehrwise rendered useless, from Stone Castles to kevlar body armour, it's ALWAYS easier to build bigger and better bullets.
 
Do you not accept that if the missile shield was capable of dealing with hundreds or more Russian missiles that America would have carte blanche to fire its own missiles with relative impunity?
Seriously are you basing your views on Starship Troopers or summat?!

Russia has thousands of operational warheads, and many more thousands in reserve, it simply is not possible to defend against that volume of warheads. This current system would struggle with one missile, let alone thousands.

This is just a case of the left going right out of their way to invent reasons to criticise America. It takes away their credibility as it shows how incapable they are of realistically viewing the world from outside of the bubble they float around in, and shows how they are more than willing to distort truth or facts in order to support their preconditioned anti-American starting point.

Now if you actually stopped this 'autopilot' way of thinking for just one minute, and acknowledged the fact that in this instance, the US are being truthful when they say this system is designed to counter missile threats from 'rogue states', you could work out a valid criticism you can aim at America (as I have done) and you will also be able to explain why Russia feels "threatened" by this system
 
There has been no point in history where someone has built a defence that cannot be defeated, circumvented or otehrwise rendered useless, from Stone Castles to kevlar body armour, it's ALWAYS easier to build bigger and better bullets.
Either that or China and Russia would merely develop their own missile defences once America had finished theirs (in fact, there has been talk between America and Russia of actually sharing this technology in the NMD, altho I presume that has cooled due to the European bases issues)
 
Well quite. Since the US have managed to get it past 'proof of concept' to partly operational (the Aegis-based stuff is 'live'), it shows that it Can Be Done. As soon as you've got that...
 
It also costs tons of money to even go down the road trying to build such a weapon whether you can make it work or not. It's also an economic battle.
 
Same as nukes really...

It's worth remembering that this has been a VERY long project for the US. Raygun was credited with bringing in the heavy money, but the technology concepts have been around since the 1970s, so it's a blue sky project that has been able to survive through 4 administrations (with alterations), but has had a massive impact of loads of bits of the military - the Aegis system I talk about was developed directly out of SDI research.
 
Russia has thousands of operational warheads, and many more thousands in reserve, it simply is not possible to defend against that volume of warheads. This current system would struggle with one missile, let alone thousands. ...

One wonders when it will be installed in Israel.
 
The Israelis have already developed&tested their own ABM weapon, the Arrow, and plugged it into their existing Patriot batteries.
 
One wonders when it will be installed in Israel.

The Israelis have already developed&tested their own ABM weapon, the Arrow, and plugged it into their existing Patriot batteries.

Israel and America have been working jointly on the Arrow system for over 20 years!!

1) If the system going into Poland is most suited for intercepting missiles from rogue states like Iran, why is it not also going into Israel? If it is not most suitable for interecepting missiles from Iran then perhaps the Russians have good reason for believing it is targetting them rather than Iran.

2) If the American/Israeli Arrow system is better at intercepting missiles from Iran why is it not going into Poland? As the US stated intention is to intercept missiles from rogue states.
 
1) If the system going into Poland is most suited for intercepting missiles from rogue states like Iran, why is it not also going into Israel? If it is not most suitable for interecepting missiles from Iran then perhaps the Russians have good reason for believing it is targetting them rather than Iran.

2) If the American/Israeli Arrow system is better at intercepting missiles from Iran why is it not going into Poland? As the US stated intention is to intercept missiles from rogue states.
Christ almighty!

1) Iranian missiles headed for America will not be anywhere near Israel in their midcourse flightpath (they will however be flying over Poland). In fact, Iranian missiles on course for America will not enter Israeli airspace at all so what would be the point basing interceptors there?

2) NMD is designed to intercept strategic ballistic missiles (ie long range) and Arrow is designed to intercept theatre ballistic missiles (ie medium range). Arrow cannot intercept strategic missiles
 
Christ almighty!

1) Iranian missiles headed for America will not be anywhere near Israel in their midcourse flightpath (they will however be flying over Poland). In fact, Iranian missiles on course for America will not enter Israeli airspace at all so what would be the point basing interceptors there?

2) NMD is designed to intercept strategic ballistic missiles (ie long range) and Arrow is designed to intercept theatre ballistic missiles (ie medium range). Arrow cannot intercept strategic missiles

Are you being intentionally obtuse!

If Iranian missiles are going anywhere they are going to go to Israel!
 
I don't think it will ever be as aggressive or as big as people fear - America is already over stretched, it can't stretch much more.

Yeah but it's still scary, wars can get beyond the control of all parties concerned. America's been used to controlling their wars for a long time, even in Vietnam and Iraq it was entirely their control whether to continue, escalate or get out. The way the yanks are talking now it's as if they could easily talk-bollocks their way into something they can't control, Russia too. What if they end up talking themselves into a fight they can't back out of. I don't rate the intelligence of the American leadership not to do something like that, they're o arrogant and up their own arses. And it's not as if ther likes of Milliband or Brown can be expected to talk any sense, they're just muppets on a string.:(

Frankly I don't know if it's a good thing that to me steely-eyed tight-mouthed Putin at least looks like he knows what he's doing.
 
Are you being intentionally obtuse!

If Iranian missiles are going anywhere they are going to go to Israel!
Well that's a completely different topic then isn't it? This missile defence has been built to defend America against an Iranian strike, fuck all to do with Israel

If Iran were to fire missiles at Israel they wouldn't use ICBMs would they? They'd use either tactical or theatre missiles, and therefore, the Arrow system will defend against those kind of missiles, and hence, why Israel has developed the Arrow system!

ps. Iran has no ICBMs and is very very unlikely to have any missiles capable of reaching America for years and years. The closest 'rogue state' that can actually reach America is North Korea, and even then it's very very doubtful whether their missiles have the survivability to mount a successful hit
 
Do you not accept that if the missile shield was capable of dealing with hundreds or more Russian missiles that America would have carte blanche to fire its own missiles with relative impunity?

Difficult concept, this, when you are talking about 'a few' nukes getting through from the Russian side versus hundreds from the US side. Say a dozen US cities melted?

Chicago
New York
San Francisco
Philadelphia
Washington
Seattle
Dallas
Birmingham
St Orleans
Detroit
Las Vegas
Cincinatti


the first 12 I thought of.

Not exactly 'impunity'?
 
There is no such defence against this kind of threat. However, they are trying to create a defence against not a "general massive exchange" but a single missile (which is all a rogue state would probably have)


If the system proposed is only intended ever to defend against single missiles, why would the Russians give a shit? But clearly they do give one.

So, do the Russians only have one missile? Or is the system likely to exceed this design brief?
 
Difficult concept, this, when you are talking about 'a few' nukes getting through from the Russian side versus hundreds from the US side. Say a dozen US cities melted?

Chicago
New York
San Francisco
Philadelphia
Washington
Seattle
Dallas
Birmingham
St Orleans
Detroit
Las Vegas
Cincinatti


the first 12 I thought of.

Not exactly 'impunity'?

'It is now time to make a choice between two regrettable, but nonetheless distinguishable post war scenarios: 1 where you got 20 million people killed, one where you've got 150 million people killed

'You're talking about mass murder general, not war'

'Mr President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than 10-20 million killed. Tops! Depending on the breaks'

There are a whole range of reasons the Russians aren't happy about it. As much as anything else they are worried about NATO encroaching on their backyard, not to mention not being friendly to having US missile batteries along what they consider to be their border. That it might be scalable to a strategic defensive shield isn't massively high on their list, especially since they're working on such a system for themselves!
 
If the system proposed is only intended ever to defend against single missiles, why would the Russians give a shit? But clearly they do give one.

So, do the Russians only have one missile? Or is the system likely to exceed this design brief?
Well I have given my opinion on why Russia gives a shit several times on this and other threads. Russia does not care about its own arsenal, as it has been no where near as vocal against the interceptor base in Fort Greely, Alaska, which is positioned in a location that would enable America to intercept Russian missiles (and this base has been around for over 6 years now I think, plenty of time for Russia to get mad, yet it didn't until the Polish base was mooted)

I think Russia gives a shit precisely because it is aimed at intercepting missiles from the Middle East. This gives America enormous power/control over the Middle East region and that in itself poses a threat to Russia in this age of diminishing oil supplies
 
Maybe the Russians are annoyed that some very large phased array battle management radars, owned & operated by the U.S, will be monitoring a fairly large chunk of Russian Airspace....
 
Maybe the Russians are annoyed that some very large phased array battle management radars, owned & operated by the U.S, will be monitoring a fairly large chunk of Russian Airspace....
Russia is already fairly well covered by the PAVE PAWS radars at Fylingdales, Thule in Greenland and another in Alaska. The Eastern European sites are intended to extend the coverage down over Syria and Iran. The Russians are using it as an excuse to kick off a bit, probably for internal consumption.
 
Back
Top Bottom