CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
I'm pretty sure in this day and age America has sight or coverage of every corner of the globe...
America's Aggressive Missile Shield
- Thread starter weltweit
- Start date
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
I just thought about this from another angle.
If these systems can really, in the near future, protect against ICBMs in a meaningful way, then they must be hugely well defended, no?
i'm thinking about 1940 and the UKs home defence radars, so famously NOT destroyed by the Luftwaffe... similar strategic paradigm.
In retrospect, and in futur - o - spect, why not;
1. teams with stand - off weapons like mortars, chemical attack, TOW missiles, said teams inserted by either tactical means (parachute) or covert means (disguise, infiltration)?
2. conventional air attack with appropriate ESM/defence suppression?
3. straightforward ESM?
Would any of these trigger a nuclear strike? No. But any of them would remove the shield.
The more I think on this the less value the defence systems seem to have in their alleged purpose.
Are they purely political weapons?
If these systems can really, in the near future, protect against ICBMs in a meaningful way, then they must be hugely well defended, no?
i'm thinking about 1940 and the UKs home defence radars, so famously NOT destroyed by the Luftwaffe... similar strategic paradigm.
In retrospect, and in futur - o - spect, why not;
1. teams with stand - off weapons like mortars, chemical attack, TOW missiles, said teams inserted by either tactical means (parachute) or covert means (disguise, infiltration)?
2. conventional air attack with appropriate ESM/defence suppression?
3. straightforward ESM?
Would any of these trigger a nuclear strike? No. But any of them would remove the shield.
The more I think on this the less value the defence systems seem to have in their alleged purpose.
Are they purely political weapons?
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
The US are being aggressive, certainly against Iran, it's plain to see. That can't be pleasing Russia.
But the Russians, in light of recent developments, are the really sinister cunts here. Always were.
Poland are just going along with whatever Uncle Sam wants to do because it likes him better than the big bad bear.
Either way if it kicks off we are all fucked.
But the Russians, in light of recent developments, are the really sinister cunts here. Always were.
Poland are just going along with whatever Uncle Sam wants to do because it likes him better than the big bad bear.
Either way if it kicks off we are all fucked.
dilute micro
esse quam videri
I think the first wave of a nuclear strike is against military. The second or final wave is against population. Creepy isn't it? Don't forget LA. It'd be a sick sick joke on the Russian's part to leave it standing.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
My advice to you is: Don't!
Who are you!? Steven Segal!? Are you suggesting elite Iranian crack commandos infiltrate America (or Poland) and destroy the entire missile defence bases???
Yes and no. The neocons (and when I say neocon, I mean neocon, not "neocon" that the 'left/u75' uses when they refer to anything slightly to the right of them which has no relation whatsoever to actual neoconservatism*) dreamt about missile defence since the Reagan years. Bush allowed them to realise that dream and this was his number 1 foreign/security policy and that is why they declared it "operational" in 2004 just before the elections (to say to the voters look what we did, we're all safer now!) when it's not even operational today barely! But, the neocons do actually have a phobia of "rogue" states so they are quite genuine when they say they want protection from them
* sorry for the rant but it pisses me off every time someone on u75 uses "neocon" when talking about absolutely anything. It's no different to Israelis screaming anti-semitic any time anyone vaguely criticises Israel - the word loses meaning, and when people use "neocon" to describe something that bares no resemblance to neoconservatism that word also loses its meaning
Not really, they have good radar coverage over the North Pole and out over the Atlantic and Pacific. Trouble with it is that the systems that are used are not terribly precise and don't give much detail. For boost-phase interception you need a radar with better resolution nearer to the target.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Well these current bases/defences are for mid phase but they do have planned boost phase defences. Either way, if we're talking about defending against Russian missiles, there would be no better place to site boost phase detectors than in Alaska, and they probably already have them there (or planned at the very least)
How can you "invade" within your own territorial limits? South Ossetia is just a province of Georgia.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Surely the crux of the matter is that unless the system includes massive redundancies in the chain of bases, you wouldn't have to destroy an entire base, but merely part of a couple of bases? Fuck the base's eyes and ears and the base is unable to carry out it's functions.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Iran would have to mount a military operation inside of Poland...
Also, it's no different from an argument asking what's the point of Menwith Hill or Fylingdales as terrorists could fire missiles at their radars. They probably could but perhaps they're also designed to withstand a hit from a hand held missile launcher? They certainly would have trouble getting inside the property to plant a higher grade explosive and I don't think the base in Poland could be any different
PAVE PAWS type systems are capable of withstanding a fair bit of damage. The phased arrays allow for a measure of redundancy and the buildings are very solidly built (and huge). Don't know exactly what system is being proposed for Poland and the Czech Republic, but likely to be of a similar nature. If you google images of PAVE PAWS you'll see the size of the buggers and there's a couple of images of the coverage of the present systems.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Global coverage...
One of the Alaskan PAVE PAWS radars...
You'd need at least a 1,000lb bomb to take something like that out, and I'm thinking they've probably got reasonably decent AAA cover...
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
I don't want to degenerate this into a Tom Clancy / weapons p0rn thing but....
There are some extraoirdinarily accurate and powerful stand off weapons that can be carried in the back of a normal car. Is it beyond the wit of the Russians to have a few dozen very capable guys simultaneously target whatever is the most vulnerable part, physically, of these systems - from a clear blue sky, not at a time of tension when the bases in question may be crawling with patrols?
My analogous experience is in providing comms on a series of exercises where UK special forces attempted to get fake bombs planted in a variety of high value sites (nuclear power stations for example).
These were exercises where the defenders had full knowledge of the 'attack' in advance - every single target was 'destroyed'.
Like VP said, you wouldn't have to raze the sites to the ground, a few hours down time is all that would be needed.
How far are they from borders? Our own artillery can lob a nuclear shell about 25km.
That's a shell that is exactly 203mm in diameter by the way, wouldn't be too hard to fit in a car a km or so from the base, set a timer and walk off.
These things are vulnerable. If the ghost of Hermann Goering is reading this he will be doing a Homer Simpson 'D'oh!' right now.
There are some extraoirdinarily accurate and powerful stand off weapons that can be carried in the back of a normal car. Is it beyond the wit of the Russians to have a few dozen very capable guys simultaneously target whatever is the most vulnerable part, physically, of these systems - from a clear blue sky, not at a time of tension when the bases in question may be crawling with patrols?
My analogous experience is in providing comms on a series of exercises where UK special forces attempted to get fake bombs planted in a variety of high value sites (nuclear power stations for example).
These were exercises where the defenders had full knowledge of the 'attack' in advance - every single target was 'destroyed'.
Like VP said, you wouldn't have to raze the sites to the ground, a few hours down time is all that would be needed.
How far are they from borders? Our own artillery can lob a nuclear shell about 25km.
That's a shell that is exactly 203mm in diameter by the way, wouldn't be too hard to fit in a car a km or so from the base, set a timer and walk off.
These things are vulnerable. If the ghost of Hermann Goering is reading this he will be doing a Homer Simpson 'D'oh!' right now.
CyberRose
أرفع الشفرات
Aww and we were havin so much fun!
Hello? Cold War? Why would the Russians do this now in this time of relative peace and not done it during the 80s when there was a very real threat of nuclear attack? And what you say above implies the Russians would be planning to launch nuclear missiles at America, well three things. One, destroying American radar bases would pretty much tell the Americans of their plans, second, they wouldn't need to destroy missile defence bases as they can't defend against a Russian nuclear attack anyway and last and most important, the theory of MAD would prevent Russia from doing anything like this in the first place, so what you say above just is not applicable to this issue. For the last time, the Polish base is not in anyway shape or form aimed at Russia!
Your scenario above involves a country that has the desire to fire ICBMs at America. If that country has an arsenal similar to other nuclear powers, then MAD will prevent that country from launching missiles. If the country only has one or two, possibly Iran in the future, then annihilation faces them even if they get two successful strikes. What would be the point?
American retaliation is the greatest defence against an attack by another state, not missile defence bases. But I think the supporters and opponents of missile defence are pretty much as clueless as each other when discussing the issue...!
dilute micro
esse quam videri
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Before or after his breakfast shot of morphine?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Ah, so that's Red Cell...
Ah man, I know he's a soldier, killer and rightwinger and the rest of it, but dammit, he's had a interesting life, for sure. He also seems like one of those forces types who didn't do 'politics', he was a soldier...always impressed by any officer who leads from the front...
T & P
|-o-| (-o-) |-o-|
Russia successfully tests US shield-immune ICBM
They are said to be introducing a multi-head variant as well.
The only thing this fucking shield will achieve is to have created a new nuclear arms race.
They are said to be introducing a multi-head variant as well.
The only thing this fucking shield will achieve is to have created a new nuclear arms race.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Well, the Russians have had those missiles since 1977 according to the article so they aren't 'new', plus they aren't allowed to build anymore under the START-1 treaty...
A slightly more reliable source than the Telegraph...
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pm.htm
So if the Russians are developing a MIRV variant, they're violating START-1...besides, 'stealth' missiles? Not going to happen - the thermal trace from launch is a big fucking giveaway to start with...
A slightly more reliable source than the Telegraph...
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pm.htm
So if the Russians are developing a MIRV variant, they're violating START-1...besides, 'stealth' missiles? Not going to happen - the thermal trace from launch is a big fucking giveaway to start with...
chainsaw cat
Tea. Biccies. Happy now?
I was going to reply to this much earlier, but now I've had 5 pints of Becks, a bottle of red and 2 malts (very nearly the Pub Triathalon...) so it may lack the clarity I hoped for.
Not that it matters muchly.
1. I'm being hypothetical - why would the Russians do it? Who knows, but if they came up with a 'why' I think my scenario could be a 'how'.
2. Destroying US radar bases as precursor to attack.... I envisaged a fait accompli with the (non US territory) bases damaged overnight and the Russians saying 'well we told you we were pissed off. Don't rebuild them, or we will take that as an act of war'. Nicely negating the defence chain (this being a near term future where the radar system is in fact ntended to/can defend against ICBMs or equivalent from Russian territory) whilst requiring the US leadership to either back down or strike whilst undefended.
3. MAD will save us all, I hope. Although I still feel the rage that some utter genital like Bush, Putin, Blair or God help us the current pair vying for the Oval office have the power to incinerate my small children whilst their own are in a nice big bunker. Where's me red flag and me gun.....?
*bump
US activates $800m missile shield base in Romania
12 May 2016
Does the missile shield have offensive capabilities?
US activates $800m missile shield base in Romania
12 May 2016
Redzikowo is only 175 miles from Kaliningrad, Russia.
Does the missile shield have offensive capabilities?
NoXion
his soul is marching on
I don't think any "missile shield" actually needs offensive capability in order for the Russians to consider to consider it provocative. Anything with the plausible potential to upset the MAD "balance" such that the US could launch a first strike without meaningful retaliation should be enough to get the Russians majorly antsy.
If this thing is for shooting down ICBMs, it won't work. AFAIK no American anti ICBM system has ever been successfully tested under anything remotely resembling real world conditions. The systems can't distinguish between real warheads and fake ones like balloons. Total waste of money and needlessly provocative but some arms merchants are raking in the bucks.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Iran doesnt actually have any ICBM's and unlikely to get any Iran's Ballistic Missile Program | The Iran Primer
any attempt would lead to a good chance of being freedomed
any attempt would lead to a good chance of being freedomed
SpamMisery
Pretty comfortable here right under your skin
TheHoodedClaw
acknowledging ur soup leg
Have you checked where Kaliningrad is? It's already surrounded by EU and Nato members.
likesfish
You can't park here sir
its a cold war zombie project that just wont die its defending against Iranian and north Korean missiles that dont exist as far as the poles going pissing off the Russians is a feature not a bug.
Russians have a missile shied around moscow hence we brought trident specifically to defeat said shield.
Russians have a missile shied around moscow hence we brought trident specifically to defeat said shield.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
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.
Swivel eyed Hilary Clinton and her project for a new American century fills me with dread .
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
My advice to you is: Don't!
Who are you!? Steven Segal!? Are you suggesting elite Iranian crack commandos infiltrate America (or Poland) and destroy the entire missile defence bases???
Yes and no. The neocons (and when I say neocon, I mean neocon, not "neocon" that the 'left/u75' uses when they refer to anything slightly to the right of them which has no relation whatsoever to actual neoconservatism*) dreamt about missile defence since the Reagan years. Bush allowed them to realise that dream and this was his number 1 foreign/security policy and that is why they declared it "operational" in 2004 just before the elections (to say to the voters look what we did, we're all safer now!) when it's not even operational today barely! But, the neocons do actually have a phobia of "rogue" states so they are quite genuine when they say they want protection from them
* sorry for the rant but it pisses me off every time someone on u75 uses "neocon" when talking about absolutely anything. It's no different to Israelis screaming anti-semitic any time anyone vaguely criticises Israel - the word loses meaning, and when people use "neocon" to describe something that bares no resemblance to neoconservatism that word also loses its meaning
Bushes neo cons have joined the Democrats . Elliot Kagan included . Surprised you never noticed . His wife Barbara Nuland caused a bit of a stir..or 2..during the Ukraine coup . She was formerly dick Cheneys advisor .
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Surely, it is basically saying "we can make a first strike without you being able to respond because we'll shoot your missiles down". That makes it offensive.
Similar threads
- Poll
