For some time now, Poland and Czechoslovakia have pondored the U.S.'s proposal to put an anti-missile defense system in their country to defend Europe and themselves from (nuke) missles coming from Iran or other rogue states.
Now Russia is threatening a military strike against Poland (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407262,00.html) if it proceeds in defending itself.

Who would you blame if Russia attacks Poland and/or another European nation ?

Russia

Russia

/agree.

I meant to make a poll for this thread, but forgot to check it in the creation. ;)

I think it's not that simple. Anti-missle defense systems have the capability of launching missles. Wasn't the US pretty upset when Cuba had missles? I know the intent and atmosphere is different, but they probably internally make the comparison.

Georgia was the training exercise for Poland.

Only this time Russia is going to bite off more than they care to chew.

Long Live the Memory of the Heros of Katyn.

I think it's not that simple. Anti-missle defense systems have the capability of launching missles. Wasn't the US pretty upset when Cuba had missles? I know the intent and atmosphere is different, but they probably internally make the comparison.

No comparison at all, AMM, are strictly defensive, with out radar guidance and computer correction, to terminal homing that can't hit a thing, and in the 1960's what Russia was trying to emplace were strictly offensive, IRBM.

On of the document I saw, said that at the time the Soviet had only 4 operational ICBM, and that was one of the reasons that they had to Back Water when Pres. Kennedy raised the stakes.

Maybe we shouldn't piss off the Russians? Surely there are other ways to defend Europe from Iran?

Maybe we shouldn't piss off the Russians? Surely there are other ways to defend Europe from Iran?

Why? They are trying to piss off everyone else, or should we wait till the Mushrooms Glow?

Because of a little thing called Mutually Assured Destruction.

Because of a little thing called Mutually Assured Destruction.

Well guess what? the Russian with that kind of threat are showing that they don't give a DAM about MAD.

They know there's nothing we can do about it.

They know there's nothing we can do about it.

So you Think so?

Hitler after meeting Chamberlan though so to.

Are we prepared to have another 50 million people die? Is having these missiles there worth WWIII?

Are we prepared to have another 50 million people die? Is having these missiles there worth WWIII?

That is the answer that Russia will have to come up with, they are the one beating the Call to War.

Now look to history and see what happens when a Dictator is appeased, Hitler was appeased in the hope of not having another war, and WWII was twice as costly + as WWI.

No comparison at all, AMM, are strictly defensive, with out radar guidance and computer correction, to terminal homing that can't hit a thing, and in the 1960's what Russia was trying to emplace were strictly offensive, IRBM.

On of the document I saw, said that at the time the Soviet had only 4 operational ICBM, and that was one of the reasons that they had to Back Water when Pres. Kennedy raised the stakes.


I am not comparing the realities. I am comparing the feeling the respective leaders feel.

I am not comparing the realities. I am comparing the feeling the respective leaders feel.

But the Leaders are suppose to have the facts, and act on facts not subjective feelings.

That is what is going on now with Russia, Putin is operating on feeling, and feeling will betray him into unwise action.

Any time a opponent acts on feelings rather than fact, there is only defeat in store for them.

Are we prepared to have another 50 million people die? Is having these missiles there worth WWIII?

If NATO backs down on Russia's nuclear threats for merely defending themselves from an attack from Iran (or elsewhere), then they become Russia's bitches, so to speak.
Of course, that's what Russia wants; afterall, it is Russia that's helping Iran with their nuclear program.
More than likely, Russia wants Iran to do their dirty work (nuke Europe), and they don't want Poland from stopping that dirty work.

Imma go play some Fallout 3 YAY :D

For some time now, Poland and Czechoslovakia have pondored the U.S.'s proposal to put an anti-missile defense system in their country to defend Europe and themselves from (nuke) missles coming from Iran or other rogue states.
Now Russia is threatening a military strike against Poland (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,407262,00.html) if it proceeds in defending itself.

Who would you blame if Russia attacks Poland and/or another European nation ?

Russia are run by the village idiots, any fucking idiot with a IQ of 2 knows these missile defence bases in poland, chezk & the uk can not stop russia's nukes hitting america, they have hundreds of them, they have submarines constantly at sea with 50 or so aimed at america, hundreds of miles off the US coast, what we have here is brain dead clowns at the kremlin who cant quite grasp that, what they need to do is to consult someone with a IQ over 40 if thats possible in russia & ask them about it.

I believe the main problem here is they know iran is a loose cannon so is pakistan, i dont know the full deal here but if poland shoots down a nuke heading to america from iran, would not there be a fallout of radiation in russia or poland?

Then would not russia be blamed by there citizens for selling nuclear technology to such a unstable loony country like iran & nort korea & now burma in the first place.

Russia is a very sick fucking puppy that needs putting down they are arming every sick nation out there, i just hope some of these nukes wind up in russia someday.

They have spent there entire time in georgia looting, what a fucking bunch of bandits they are, as a army they are hopless always have been, there like the french one military disaster after another.

Russia has the energy gun held to Europe's head. Without Russian oil and natural gas there will be a cold winter in Europe...

You don't need real weapons all the time...

Russia has the energy gun held to Europe's head. Without Russian oil and natural gas there will be a cold winter in Europe...

You don't need real weapons all the time...

And wars have started for less, Putin is playing Russian Roulett with world peace.

Russia has the energy gun held to Europe's head. Without Russian oil and natural gas there will be a cold winter in Europe...

You don't need real weapons all the time...
Without exports from Europe Russia would be in big trouble too. It's a game of poker now, who will fold first?

Maybe we shouldn't piss off the Russians? Surely there are other ways to defend Europe from Iran?

And do you really believe that all these missiles and provocations are for protecting the west against Iran? Do you really believe that it is an innocent protective measure? Think again then.

If Cuba wanted a Russian anti-missile system, would the Americans agree?

If Cuba wanted a Russian anti-missile system, would the Americans agree?

If it was indeed a Russian AMS then no real problem. Of course the real problem is Russian just doesn;t make purely defensive AMS unlike the Americans who use completely differen launch vehicles and platforms for the two types of missiles.

If Cuba wanted a Russian anti-missile system, would the Americans agree?

Russians don't have effective antimissle defense systems. So the US would have no reason to object to it. And even if they did, the US would still have no reason to object as it would not present any threat to the United States.

Of course the real problem is Russian just doesn;t make purely defensive AMS unlike the Americans who use completely differen launch vehicles and platforms for the two types of missiles.
If by "two types" you mean ICBM/ IRBM and ABM then you're wrong.
S-300, S-400 :rolleyes:

Russians don't have effective antimissle defense systems.
Wrong.
See my post above.

Wrong.
See my post above.
How many successful operational deployments have those systems made? How many involved at least one intercept under combat conditions?

Echo quick question is it possible in theory that an AMS could be used offenisivally?

No...ABMs hit things on their way up, not their way down. They need to be fast, lightweight, and highly maneuverable - three things ballistic missiles are far from.

If by "two types" you mean ICBM/ IRBM and ABM then you're wrong.
S-300, S-400 :rolleyes:

No, I am correct. There is no such thing as a purely defensive Russian AMS system. They, quite ingenously, merge the systems with the offensive missile systems to save on computer processors. The don't have the resources to waste like we do so they economize.

Questionaire. What type of President would you be?

Question 1.
Russia fires a nuclear ballistic missile and destroys Warsaw.
As president, you

a) Launch 1000 missiles aimed at Russian towns and Cities

b) Nuke Cuba

c) Call Russia a bad boy, and tell them not to do it again.

If you answered a, you are like the current President.
If you answered b, you are like a famous past President (assassinated)
If you answered c, you might make a future President.

Yust wondering but if Russia wanted to nuke europe, how many of those rockets could they possible intercept?

No, I am correct. There is no such thing as a purely defensive Russian AMS system. They, quite ingenously, merge the systems with the offensive missile systems to save on computer processors. The don't have the resources to waste like we do so they economize.

Nonsense: which part of S-300 or S-400 is offensive?

No, I am correct. There is no such thing as a purely defensive Russian AMS system. They, quite ingenously, merge the systems with the offensive missile systems to save on computer processors. The don't have the resources to waste like we do so they economize.
Yeah, this just isn't true. The design of an ABM versus a ballistic missile are radically different due to the unique demands of each application. The most obvious difference is that a ballistic missile's payload bus needs to be capable of atmospheric reentry, while an ABM does not. This tends to make ballistic missile payloads really fucking heavy on account of having a shitload of thermal shielding for the warhead, which enlarges the entire missile quite a bit since it now needs to carry more powerful engines and bigger fuel tanks. Differing design features make each application mutually exclusive. It is like saying a Smart car can double as a garbage truck.

The anti-missile system that is supposedly a defense against Iran is in all probability primarily a weapon to be used against Russian second strike retaliatory attacks. The idea is to create doubt whether the USA believes in M.A.D and thereby give credibility to US threats against Russia. The US could hit Russia with limited non-nuclear missile strikes if Russia does something the USA does not like. The Anti-missile system (if it works) could be used to stop Russian retaliation.

In all probability the true purpose of the anti-missile system is just to give money to defense contractors and the anti-Missile system won't even work; But Russia and Iran won't know whether they can be sure that the anti-missile system won't work.

The Anti-missile system (if it works) could be used to stop Russian retaliation.
No it could not. The system in question is designed to defend against one or two rogue ICBM launches. A Russian strike would be larger by two orders of magnitude. Not to mention that we would still have no defense against the SLBM threat of their Delta III/IV SSBN fleet.

In all probability the true purpose of the anti-missile system is just to give money to defense contractors and the anti-Missile system won't even work; But Russia and Iran won't know whether they can be sure that the anti-missile system won't work.
What makes you say that it won't work? It is still in development, but the technology has shown a great deal of progress since the early 1990s.

And wars have started for less, Putin is playing Russian Roulett with world peace.

Until the US moved its weapons systems to Europe, the Russians were keeping to home turf.

Until the US moved its weapons systems to Europe, the Russians were keeping to home turf.

:roflmao:

Sputnik launch

In October 1957, the world was introduced to the fear of a missile attack when Sputnik was launched. This was to lead to ICBMs: Inter-continental ballistic missiles.

That lift vehicle became the design for the First ICBM, at the time the U.S. didn't have a capable ICBM at that time.

Yes the Soviets were sticking so close to home.

The USSR was setting up puppet communist regimes in Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and East Germany, as the Red Army maintained a military presence in most of these countries.

How about the Greek civil war started by communist-led insurgents in 1947, the U.S. had not attacked any Communist Republic, but the Communist were attacking European States.

How about the Soviet Blockade of Berlin? 1948? so who started the Cold War?

How about the Support for the Communist Chinese during the Civil War in China?

So who actions started the Cold War?

During the 1960s, the Russians put their money into producing more missiles regardless of quality while America built fewer but better quality missiles. By 1961, there were enough bombs to destroy the world.

British Intelligence estimated that just one medium sized H-bomb on London would essentially destroy anything living up to 30 miles away.

The Cold War came to an end in 1991

May 30, 1994, the U.S. stopped targeting the Soviet Union with our nuclear weapons.

Detargeting will involve changing
weapon system control settings so that, on a day-to-day basis, no country,
including Russia, Ukraine or any other former Soviet territory, will be
targeted by U.S. strategic forces.

Now Russia threatens Poland - with nuclear attack | Herald S...
Aug 17, 2008 ... But seriously, when any nuclear weapon has deployed - let’s face it, .... The Soviets did not place a missile defence system in Cuba they ...

blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php... - 208k - Similar pages

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg/608px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png

http://www.nukestrat.com/WorldNuclearForces.jpg

... The american stockpile nearly halved in 3 years?

[IMG]... The american stockpile nearly halved in 3 years?
It sounds ok to me. Between 2003 and 2005 we decomissioned all of our Peacekeeper ICBMs. Ten MIRVs per missile * 114 missiles = 1140 weapons. We also decomissioned 1,050 of our 1500 Minuteman IIIs and reduced the payload from 3 MIRVs to a unitary warhead on the other 450, which explains the rest. That affected our strategic force in order to comply with START II. Our tactical force has never been very large; I think it is less than 1,000 warheads and has been for some time (tactical weapons still have their uses, however few). After START-II fell apart, the SORT treaty took over. The US has achieved compliance with SORT's 2012 goals five years ahead of schedule, which is another indication of how quickly the STRATCOM alert force has shrunk. It seems like just a rough estimate anyway.

In regards to Buffalo's post, I doubt all of the difference in American and Russian behavior is due to politics. Another dimension worth considering is that the Russian military long regarded nuclear weapons as just another tool in their kit, albeit a unique one.

Read about Soviet Deep Battle Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_operations) and you'll see that Russian strategists and military leadership is trained and thinks on a very large physical scale. Then read about the US military's Principles of War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principles_of_War#United_States_principles_of_war) , which is a good example of the flip side (pay particular attention to economy of force). You will see how radically and fundamentally the two cultures differ, as western (read: NATO) traditions tend towards a smaller, but more maneuverable and better technologically equipped force. In maneuver warfare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuver_warfare), which is what we train for and are devastatingly good at, the smaller force can out-maneuver the enemy, rapidly apply decisive amounts of firepower with precision at critical points to confuse and paralyze its field units, and then address those field units in detail under much more favorable conditions. There are countless examples of the advantages of each system. Operation Desert Storm is one, or take your pick of Israel's throwdowns with its neighbors. Everybody probably knows what side followed what model. If the Soviets were Andre the Giant, NATO was Bruce Lee.

The theory goes that since the Russians see their battlespace as one big blob in which they are fucking shit up, the massive energy release and destructive power of nuclear weapons are not quite as big as they are when your military's preferred strike and fire support weapon is a GPS-guided 500lb bomb with less than ten meters of circular error probability (I'm talking about JDAM). Everything is relative, especially in war. The US, France, and the UK see their arsenals largely for their strategic deterrent value, with diplomatic repercussions from even tactical releases being very profound. The Soviets (and now the Russians) regard their arsenals as having less diplomatic value and more tactical value than we do in the west.

This difference in tradition was reflected in the size of Russia's tactical stockpile versus that of the US throughout the Cold War, as well as who was able to authorize a nuclear release. It always seemed to me to be an ideological spinoff of collectivist principles, while the individualism and initiative that NATO militaries put a premium on for their youngest and most junior personnel is reflective of our own societies as a whole. I think the relationships are clear. While the Russians surely understand the strategic deterrent effect and diplomatic significance of nuclear weapons, they also view them differently than almost any other nation on earth except maybe China. Therefore, another reason why they seem so wedded to them is because it is ingrained in their military traditions.

Damn, that ended up being way longer than I thought it would...

E3R

Excellent short answer.

Interesting to see how Russia is acting towards all this but to some degree I can understand why. Im not sure if its the russian reasoning for being against the AMD system in poland though.


If Hitler pre-invasion was allowed to construct "defensive" systems strategicly in other countries on the scale that the US has I wonder what the outcome of WW2 would have been.

It is a defensive and seemingly innocent thing that the US is doing but what assurance do other nations have that the US isnt preparing defensive systems for a major offensive?

I heard somewhere once the best way to avoid war all together is to NEVER prepare for it. In the obvious perspective it seems as if Russia is being the agressor
on the issue but the US and the AMD systems are in a sense just as agressive a move.

Considering the US current invasion of Iraq and the extremely questionable REASONS behind the invasion I can easily see why other countries are a little worried.

Considering the US current invasion of Iraq and the extremely questionable REASONS behind the invasion I can easily see why other countries are a little worried.

There you have it, in a nutshell.

There you have it, in a nutshell.

From the Nut in Her Shell.

Same people who voted Russia - did you think Kennedy did the right thing to block missiles going to cuba?

Same people who voted Russia - did you think Kennedy did the right thing to block missiles going to cuba?

Different Missiles, IRBM, nuclear capable, offensive capability only.

And yes, Kennedy was right.

Now as to Russia, BMDS, ABM's, are defensive only, intercepts only other missile, non-nuclear, no offensive capability at all, totally different guidance system, and pay load is a Kinetic Kill Vehicle.

THAAD is designed to defend U.S. troops, allied forces, population centers and critical infrastructure against short- to intermediate range ballistic missiles. THAAD comprises a fire control and communications system, interceptors, launchers and a radar. The THAAD interceptor uses hit-to-kill technology to destroy targets, and is the only weapon system that engages threat ballistic missiles at both endo- and exo-atmospheric altitudes.

A key element of the nation's Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), THAAD is a Missile Defense Agency program, with the program office located in Huntsville, AL. The agency is developing a BMDS to defend the United States, its deployed forces, friends and allies against ballistic missiles of all ranges and in all phases of flight.

THAAD MISSILE INFORMATION
The target object data and the predicted intercept point are downloaded to the missile prior to launch. The updated target and intercept data are also transmitted to the missile in flight.

The missile is 6.17m in length and is equipped with a single stage solid fuel rocket motor with thrust vectoring. The rocket motor is supplied by Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne. The launch weight is 900kg.

A separation motor is installed at the interstage at the forward end of the booster section. The separation motor assists in the separation of the Kinetic Kill Vehicle (KKV) and the spent boost motor.

The system carries no explosive warhead at all, only a Kinetic Kill Vehicle, basically a solid bullet

I heard somewhere once the best way to avoid war all together is to NEVER prepare for it.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

nietzschefan rember they are working on the old theory that "god shines on america, those that america kill deserve to die, those who kill americans deserve to die, those who go against americas will deserve to die"

nietzschefan rember they are working on the old theory that "god shines on america, those that america kill deserve to die, those who kill americans deserve to die, those who go against americas will deserve to die"

No, the two situations are COMPLETELY different. In Cuba the USSR was installing a purely OFFENSIVE weapon. In Poland the US is installing a purely DEFENSIVE measure. Two different animals.

well actually as MAD was a defencive stratigy you COULD say they were installing defencive weaponry

oh and the missles in turkey had no war heads did they?

Putting that asside you STILL invaded a sovrigin nation which was percuring weapons for the purpose of defending itself from you

Iran is not a threat. Russia is not a threat. Both have the right to defend their interests. There is only one threat to World peace and that lies over yonder ... north, just above South America. It always amazes me that American "interests" can extend to the Middle East and Western and Eastern Europe, but Eastern European nations are not allowed to consider the integrity of their very own borders in their "interest".
Its funnier than Monty Python.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

thats roughly in peace, prepare for war, right

But the Leaders are suppose to have the facts, and act on facts not subjective feelings.

That is what is going on now with Russia, Putin is operating on feeling, and feeling will betray him into unwise action.

Any time a opponent acts on feelings rather than fact, there is only defeat in store for them.

we're fucked in Iraq then

yes, Kennedy was right.

Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Let he who desires peace prepare for war.

Iran is not a threat. Russia is not a threat. Both have the right to defend their interests. There is only one threat to World peace and that lies over yonder ... north, just above South America.
The United States is not a threat.

It, too, has a right to defend its interests; without your permission.

The United States -- one half, anyway -- is a thing inevitably the baddest to toy with the wrong way.