America's Aggressive Missile Shield

[Casually Red]

Probably because the US actually, on this occasion, is being truthful as to why the missiles are being sited there - and the extra push provided by Russia acting all hard in Georgia has allowed the US to get Polish approval in exchange for actual US forces on the ground in Poland (they obviously have learnt from history).

It is also worth noting that the Russians have an ABM system, and have had one operational for at least thirty years. That they apparently consider it a nukeable offence for Poland to have one is deeply, deeply concerning.

A lot of deliberate disingenuity here . Russia's anti missile defences are in Russia . Nowhere else . Poland is a member of NATO , and hosting an American system . On Russia's doorstep . If Russia started sticking their system in Mexico , Cuba or Panama the sound of shit hitting the fan would be deafening . The yanks would be openly threatening war .

Russia wasn't acting hard in Georgia either . A complete fucking idiot ..and criminal..by the name of Saakashvili ..with certain US hands up his arse launched a massive military strike against South Ossetia. Russia responded to it in kind and wasn't faced down like John McCain and others had anticipated .
They didn't anticipate this because they are complete fucking idiots . And complete fucking idiots dictate US foreign policy .

 

[Casually Red]

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.

Are you seriously suggesting the residents of South Ossetia aren't overwhelmingly in favour of Independence from Georgia ? That the Russians are faking these results to hold them captive ?

Yes you are . You're a shill .

 

[Casually Red]

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.

So it's all just a coincidence all these missile systems being placed around Russia's borders, and nothing to do with Russia at all . The Russians are only pissed off about it be ause the Russians are evil. And they really want to take over the world .

Shill alert going off quite frequently today .

 

[SpamMisery]

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.

Offensive system has a technical definition. SM3 is simply not offensive.

However, to your personal interpretation of the phrase I say SM3 is not able to intercept ICBMs so Russia would be able to conduct both a first and second strike regardless. The whole reason Russia makes a big deal about it is so nobody is surprised when they pull out of the INF Treaty.

 

[Casually Red]

Every time one of those US missile systems is installed around Russia it automatically makes it..and therefore the country hosting it on the US behalf ...a military threat and a military target . This in turn ensures the puppet state hosting it has to spend oodles on " defence " . Further enmeshing it in the whole military orientated US aggressive posturing . It becomes part of the entire military threat directed against Russia right across its borders . The degree of military force under US control gets ratcheted up incessantly right on Russias borders . It's wholly an aggressive stance directed against Russia . And anyone seriously portraying it as otherwise is insulting our intelligence . Piss taking to a laughable degree .
It's wholly part and parcel of the "great game " being played out in Europe .

It's notable too that a few trying to claim its not at all directed against Russia were saying the exact same thing about the coup in Ukraine . Which was also a total piss take . It's an interesting argument with some pretty bizarre logic .
Russia is making totally illogical military warnings , sabre rattling etc but the poor innocent west isn't taking any aggressive stance against it . Just worried about those crazy people in North Korea and Iran . Laughable stuff .

 

[Casually Red]

Offensive system has a technical definition. SM3 is simply not offensive.

However, to your personal interpretation of the phrase I say SM3 is not able to intercept ICBMs so Russia would be able to conduct both a first and second strike regardless. The whole reason Russia makes a big deal about it is so nobody is surprised when they pull out of the INF Treaty.

Aren't the missile systems themselves ...the MK 41 ...dual purpose ? In that they can fire Tomohawk Cruise missiles as well as anti ballistic missiles ? Which basically makes them Cruise missile launchers ..if the yanks want them to..and therefore a violation of the INF treaty ?
Russia is perfectly entitled to..indeed obligated to..pull out of a treaty if the other side is violating its terms .

The Missile system installed in Romania is a ground based version of the MK 41 Aegis .

Mark 41 Vertical Launching System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's an offensive weapon system as well as a defensive one . It can fire tomohawk cruise missiles . It's a treaty violation without a doubt .

 

[DownwardDog]

Aren't the missile systems themselves ...the MK 41 ...dual purpose ?.

No, Aegis Ashore can only be used for firing at other missiles. You're probably too upset over Eurovision to be able to google properly.

 

[SpamMisery]

Aren't the missile systems themselves ...the MK 41 ...dual purpose ? In that they can fire Tomohawk Cruise missiles as well as anti ballistic missiles ? Which basically makes them Cruise missile launchers ..if the yanks want them to..and therefore a violation of the INF treaty ?
Russia is perfectly entitled to..indeed obligated to..pull out of a treaty if the other side is violating its terms .

The Missile system installed in Romania is a ground based version of the MK 41 Aegis .

Mark 41 Vertical Launching System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's an offensive weapon system as well as a defensive one . It can fire tomohawk cruise missiles . It's a treaty violation without a doubt .

Whilst they were required to destroy the original launchers under INF, I'm not sure using a modified launcher is a violation.

The SM3 and Tomahawk are different lengths, diameters and weights. It's not like deciding to wear different shoes for a day.

But you're right, if the US decided to test fire a Tomahawk from the modified ground-based SM3 launcher, that would be a breach.

Of course, all of the above ignores the fact Russia has allegedly already broken the Treaty.

 

[Casually Red]

Whilst they were required to destroy the original launchers under INF, I'm not sure using a modified launcher is a violation.

The SM3 and Tomahawk are different lengths, diameters and weights. It's not like deciding to wear different shoes for a day.

But you're right, if the US decided to test fire a Tomahawk from the modified ground-based SM3 launcher, that would be a breach.

Of course, all of the above ignores the fact Russia has allegedly already broken the Treaty.

In US Navy tests at CONUS it was demonstrated the land based MK 41 could accept a Tomahawk capsule . So it can . The SM3 also requires the long tube, same as the Tomohawk . It's dual use , or very easily rigged to be .

And it's an insult to the intelligence this " rogue state " doctrine of the Bush/ Blair fantasy factory is still being used to flog this shit as remotely necessary .


And if you've any evidence that Russia has broken the Treaty..apart from senior yanks saying " Russia has broken the treaty by testing a GLCM that we aren't going to tell you anything about " then feel free to post it . A high level American accusation without one shred of proof constitutes jack shit after the WMD debacle . Especially when the benefits of making the accusation are self evident .

This is new arms race in Europe, of the worst kind . We were lucky enough to get away with the last one . Returning there is utter madness .

 

[Casually Red]

No, Aegis Ashore can only be used for firing at other missiles. You're probably too upset over Eurovision to be able to google properly.

And so the poodle yelps faithfully for his master . Yet again .

 

[SpamMisery]

In US Navy tests at CONUS it was demonstrated the land based MK 41 could accept a Tomahawk capsule . So it can . The SM3 also requires the long tube, same as the Tomohawk . It's dual use , or very easily rigged to be .

Do you have a link to that test? I couldn't find anything about it :/

 

[likesfish]

It's rather pointless ageis the big fuck off radar and computer system is for shooting stuff down.

Tomahawk is a cruise missile you could mount it in an attached launcher but why you would God only knows be like hanging slammers a type of air to air missile off a b52 yes it fits and you could launch it but it's utterly pointless and does nothing worthwhile.

 

[Casually Red]

It's rather pointless ageis the big fuck off radar and computer system is for shooting stuff down.

Tomahawk is a cruise missile you could mount it in an attached launcher but why you would God only knows be like hanging slammers a type of air to air missile off a b52 yes it fits and you could launch it but it's utterly pointless and does nothing worthwhile.

It does if it's got a nuclear warhead .

 

[Casually Red]

Do you have a link to that test? I couldn't find anything about it :/

It's discussed at the end of the comment section here

Russia Claims U.S. INF Violations: A Wonk’s Démarche

 

[Gromit]

Personally I don't see how a defence shield is aggressive.

Taking troops and invading the Crimea for naval access. Now that's aggression.

The sort of aggression that makes people feel uneasy and in need of a defence shield.

If there was unilateral disarmament I'd still expect defence shields to stay in place once all the nukes had gone. You just can't trust those commie red bastards.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Personally I don't see how a defence shield is aggressive.

Taking troops and invading the Crimea for naval access. Now that's aggression.

The sort of aggression that makes people feel uneasy and in need of a defence shield.

If there was unilateral disarmament I'd still expect defence shields to stay in place once all the nukes had gone. You just can't trust those commie red bastards.

Fuckwit.

All any of this is, is geo-strategic chess, albeit with several players, rather than two. All sides constantly test the boundaries of their board, and seek to incorporate new territory, either through influence, or through taking an opposition piece off of the board - usually a proxy for the opposition, hence Ukraine, and Putin's bite-back on Crimea.

 

[mather]

Plus the Americans have been building up this missile 'defence' shield since 2002 so any talk of this being a response to Russian aggression/expansionism is nothing more than complete and utter nonsense. Russia's actions over the past few years have been in response to this development, not its cause.

 

[likesfish]

It does if it's got a nuclear warhead .

Not really because all the infrastructure can't help in targeting a cruise missile its not like America has a shortage of missile delivery options

 

[SpamMisery]

It's discussed at the end of the comment section here

Russia Claims U.S. INF Violations: A Wonk’s Démarche

At best, I'd say it's against the spirit of the INF Treaty, but it's by no means a black and white violation. Hence why the lawyers are involved. But is that your point: that it's against the spirit of the INF or do you consider it a full violation?

 

[Casually Red]

At best, I'd say it's against the spirit of the INF Treaty, but it's by no means a black and white violation. Hence why the lawyers are involved. But is that your point: that it's against the spirit of the INF or do you consider it a full violation?

Both . And let's be clear here, being "against the spirit "of the INF treaty in this instance still means there's a plan to ring Russia with Tomahawk capable launchers, one that's being implemented . That's a major act of aggression . A very aggressive posture .
Right on its borders across central Europe . That's worse in some ways than the 1980s , because it's closer to Russia now .
Whether the treaty is fully legally violated or just about circumvented is a moot point when alls said and done . The act of aggression in itself means ..for certain...a new arms race, an intensification of the current cold war , and an intensification of the proxy wars currently fought between both sides . And nuclear capable powers back sitting with hair triggers facing each other down.

When Obama said he was going to " reset " US Russian relations he certainly meant it . Back to the early 80s .

This type of " coincidence " and " grey area " needs to be viewed alongside a series of coincidences and grey areas . Such as the coup in Ukraine , which had the seizure of Crimea and NATO membership and missiles on Russian borders as the prize . The failed assault in Georgia ..the successful destruction of Libya and Yugoslavia and the creation of camp Bondsteel, the ongoing attempt on Syria . non stop aggression coupled with non stop demonisation of Russia.

When this is all carried out by a superpower with an inherent belief in its own exceptionalism, and with an unashamed ideology of global domination then there aren't any grey areas from a Russian point of view . Just a massive existential threat looming and positioning itself for attack . The Russians would be utterly stupid to view it as anything else . Because it isn't .

 

[Casually Red]

Not really because all the infrastructure can't help in targeting a cruise missile its not like America has a shortage of missile delivery options

It does have a shortage right on Russia's borders . Or rather did .

 

[SpamMisery]

Whether the treaty is fully legally violated or just about circumvented is a moot point when alls said and done

Then you will join me in condemning Russia for RS-26.

Although the RS-26 is legally an ICBM, it may be that the demonstrated range of 5 800 km is close to the maximum range of the missile. It is worth noting that missile demonstrated this range with a single warhead. It is possible that it may not demonstrate ICBM range with multiple warheads.

Who knows, maybe they won't deploy the MIRVd payload.

 

[Casually Red]

When they start sticking the RS 26 into something they call a defensive anti missile shield and stick it in Honduras I'll be happy to join your condemnation . Until then it's simply an ICBM .

Eta

And we're it not for this so called " missile defence " business in Europe it's unlikely it would even exist in the first place . It's been specifically designed to counter it . The INF treaty was signed well before this shenanigans began . Had such a proposition been on the table ..along with NATO expansion towards Russian borders no such treaty would e er have been signed . A treaty which binds Russia while NATO encircles with an offensive capable short rNge delivery system is plainly a worthless document . Although very useful to the United States for obvious reasons .

 

[likesfish]

America doesn't have any ground launched tomahawks left.
The missile shield is what it is a dubious cold war zombie system for intercepting one or two missiles.
If Russia didn't have the idea of "near abroad" and successfully pissed off all its neighbours it wouldn't be encircled

 

[yield]

Nato countries begin largest war game in eastern Europe since cold war
Monday 6 June 2016

The largest war game in eastern Europe since the end of the cold war has started in Poland, as Nato and partner countries seek to mount a display of strength as a response to concerns about Russia’s assertiveness and actions.

The 10-day military exercise, involving 31,000 troops and thousands of vehicles from 24 countries, has been welcomed among Nato’s allies in the region, though defence experts warn that any mishap could prompt an offensive reaction from Moscow.

A defence attache at a European embassy in Warsaw said the “nightmare scenario” of the exercise, named Anaconda-2016, would be “a mishap, a miscalculation which the Russians construe, or choose to construe, as an offensive action”.

Poland gets official warning from EU over constitutional court changes
Wednesday 1 June 2016

The EU executive has given Poland an official warning that changes to its constitutional court endanger the rule of law, in an unprecedented decision that could lead to sanctions against the country.

Frans Timmermans, the vice-president of the European commission, said he had written to the Polish government warning that recent alterations to the workings of Poland’s highest court posed “a systemic risk to the rule of law”

 

[Pickman's model]

Nato countries begin largest war game in eastern Europe since cold war
Monday 6 June 2016


Poland gets official warning from EU over constitutional court changes
Wednesday 1 June 2016

russia gets crimea as a show of strength. 31,000 assorted soldiers run around poland for a few days in a vain attempt to terrify putin.

 

[likesfish]

Makes you wonder doesn't it? Same thing here. Richard Marcinko - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

not the SEALs most favorite ex member and most of his red cell antics well fun and all rather failed to point out that terrorists dont have millions of dollars of training and arnt expert frogmen and parachutists