Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Share
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:34 am

    You make an excellent point there...

    If the US will take action to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapon or ICBM capability then why do they need an ABM system too... except the obvious excuse to move US troops from western european countries to eastern european countries?

    Equally we are told Israel needs nuclear weapons to defend itself in case its hostile neighbours get nuclear weapons or choose to use WMDs which many actually already have.

    If they are going to attack Iran to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapon capability why would Israel need nukes herself?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:42 am

    US missile shield branches into Asia, Middle East

    The Pentagon has revealed plans to deploy elements of its global antiballistic missile defense system in Asia and Middle East.

    Those silly paranoid Russians... the US can have joint ABM systems with Japan and Australia and South Korea and poland and the czech republic and turkey and even georgia, but with Russia it has to be separate but connected...

    And they wont sign a piece of paper promising not to use it against Russia...

    I look forward to seeing the modified Oscar IIIs each equipped with 72 Oniks missiles... and the two Typhoon class subs with 20 UKSK launchers and 160 Oniks missiles... sunny
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1165
    Points : 2053
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Russian Patriot on Tue Mar 27, 2012 6:31 pm

    A live microphone has captured U.S. President Barack Obama telling Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev he will have more room to negotiate on missile defense after the November election.

    The unusually frank exchange between the two leaders took place on Monday on the eve of a global nuclear safety summit in Seoul. Neither president appeared to be aware the conversation was being picked up.

    According to a transcript of the recorded conversation carried by ABC News, Obama told Medvedev: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."

    "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you," Medvedev responded.

    The U.S. president then said: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

    Medvedev replied: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]."

    The slip-up was quickly jumped upon by Obama's Republican rivals, who accused him of secretive deal-making on U.S. national security.

    White House hopeful Mitt Romney said the unscripted moment shows Obama has a hidden agenda. “President Obama signaled that he’s going to cave to Russia on missile defense, but the American people have a right to know where else he plans to be ‘flexible’ in a second term,” he said in a statement.

    Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich called the exchange an "extraordinary moment caught on tape where the president basically said to a Russian leader, 'Please wait until after the election so I can sell out.'"

    The White House later released a statement playing down the importance of the remarks. "Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough," said deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

    On Tuesday, Obama said he was not “hiding the ball” and is “on record” in a past speech as saying he wants to make a deal with Russia.

    Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on a European missile defense system at the NATO-Russia Council Summit in Lisbon in November 2010.

    Russia believes that the development of the concept and architecture of European missile defense should be implemented on an equal basis and provide adequate confidence-building measures and transparency in terms of defense.

    U.S. officials have repeatedly said the missile defense system would not be directed against Russia and that the U.S., NATO and Russia would benefit from its strategic capacity and cooperation.


    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120327/172416118.html

    gloriousfatherland

    Posts : 98
    Points : 123
    Join date : 2011-10-01
    Age : 25
    Location : Zapad and Boctok strong

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  gloriousfatherland on Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:19 am

    Russian Patriot wrote:A live microphone has captured U.S. President Barack Obama telling Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev he will have more room to negotiate on missile defense after the November election.

    The unusually frank exchange between the two leaders took place on Monday on the eve of a global nuclear safety summit in Seoul. Neither president appeared to be aware the conversation was being picked up.

    According to a transcript of the recorded conversation carried by ABC News, Obama told Medvedev: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it's important for him to give me space."

    "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you," Medvedev responded.

    The U.S. president then said: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."

    Medvedev replied: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir [Putin]."

    The slip-up was quickly jumped upon by Obama's Republican rivals, who accused him of secretive deal-making on U.S. national security.

    White House hopeful Mitt Romney said the unscripted moment shows Obama has a hidden agenda. “President Obama signaled that he’s going to cave to Russia on missile defense, but the American people have a right to know where else he plans to be ‘flexible’ in a second term,” he said in a statement.

    Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Newt Gingrich called the exchange an "extraordinary moment caught on tape where the president basically said to a Russian leader, 'Please wait until after the election so I can sell out.'"

    The White House later released a statement playing down the importance of the remarks. "Since 2012 is an election year in both countries, with an election and leadership transition in Russia and an election in the United States, it is clearly not a year in which we are going to achieve a breakthrough," said deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes.

    On Tuesday, Obama said he was not “hiding the ball” and is “on record” in a past speech as saying he wants to make a deal with Russia.

    Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on a European missile defense system at the NATO-Russia Council Summit in Lisbon in November 2010.

    Russia believes that the development of the concept and architecture of European missile defense should be implemented on an equal basis and provide adequate confidence-building measures and transparency in terms of defense.

    U.S. officials have repeatedly said the missile defense system would not be directed against Russia and that the U.S., NATO and Russia would benefit from its strategic capacity and cooperation.


    http://www.en.ria.ru/mlitary_news/20120327/172416118.html
    They should not trust one word from our amerikanyet drug. Trust caused the expansion of HATO,Trus caused the collapse of russian society during the 90's, trust caused those events we see in the middle east.Never trust anyone except yourself.

    victor7

    Posts : 213
    Points : 224
    Join date : 2012-02-28

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  victor7 on Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:36 am

    Obama said he was not “hiding the ball” and is “on record” in a past speech as saying he wants to make a deal with Russia.

    Deal or no deal, it would be stupid for Russia to sit and wait until US develops a technology to counter and defeat any deal made with Russia.

    Romney says Russia is #1 GeoPolitical enemy..........is that why NATO is feeding its troops via the NDN supply network starting from North Russia and all the way to Afghanistan? Hate for Russia is paramount in the US-UK circles, they are working on their goals that they have tried time and again to achieve in the last 200 years, albiet unsuccessfully.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Thu Apr 05, 2012 11:42 am

    Talk about destabilising...

    Faster, higher, deadlier: US plans nuclear drones

    The United States is planning on building nuclear-powered drones. The innovation will allow an increase in flying time "from days to months," leaving more power available for operating equipment.

    ­Research for the project was conducted by Sandia National Laboratories, the US government's principal nuclear research and development agency, and defense contractor Northrop Grumman, the Guardian reports.

    The technology is to deal with three problems facing the US’ current drone arsenal: insufficient flying time over a potential target, lack of power for running surveillance and weapons systems, and lack of communications capacity.

    The team looked at numerous different power systems for large- and medium-sized drones before settling on the nuclear solution.

    The research summary deems the technology as highly efficient, saying the results of the research are “to be used in the next generation of unmanned air vehicles used for military and intelligence applications."

    However, there is a big concern over safety as drones have a tendency to crash – and should a nuclear-powered drone fall into the hands of terrorists or unfriendly powers, the consequences could be devastating.

    http://rt.com/news/us-plans-nuclear-drones-058/

    Now there are a few ways you can make a nuclear powered aircraft... most fall over because the radiation shielding to protect the crew will weigh about 90 tons so you have an enormous bomber the size of a B-52 that can stay in the air for years without running out of fuel, but only has the capacity to carry 5 tons of weapons and can only fly at 600km/h.

    The problem is the weight of the shielding.... which makes the unlimited range rather pointless because it is too easy to shoot down and its payload is pathetic... plus there is the risk of it crashing.

    Take out the crew and then you have three real options... the option I expect them to apply is to have a small reactor generating a current that can be used to both power an electric motor to keep the aircraft in the air, and run the electronics.

    The other two nuclear engine options are clean and dirty jet engine.

    Very simply a jet engine is a tube where air is sucked in one end, the air is compressed by making the tube narrow, and fuel is added and burned generating even more heat and expelled out the back generating thrust.

    You can connect a nuclear power plant to such a system directly so the air is heated by the core of the reactor in which case the air coming out the back of this jet engine is radioactive and very dangerous.

    Or you can set up an indirect connection where the heat from the reactor core is used to heat the air going through the reactor by heating something else and then letting the air flowing through the engine get heated by that other thing. In a bomber you want to fly around friendly territory for a bit before it enters enemy airspace then you want the safer two options, but in a single use cruise missile the dirty option is also the simplest and the cheapest.

    Rather than making a turbojet with lots of blades and sections, you can make the simplest jet... the ramjet. Air is sucked in and heated and released out the rear. Very simple and relatively cheap and easy.

    A solid rocket booster to get it airborne and it could fly a low altitude for years.

    Load 20-30 small nuclear bombs like 152mm artillery shell sized bombs that can be released every once in a while and the exhaust and very high speed at low level will do enormous damage while the nukes will ensure certain targets are definitely destroyed.

    The Russians could use the Typhoons to carry two of them... they could launch them in the south atlantic and they could fly all the way up to the US and just zig zag over the countryside for 10 years or more...

    With their work on scramjets these missiles could fly at mach 5 or 6 at very low altitude or much faster at higher altitudes... ABM systems would be useless.

    The US developed such a cruise missile in the 1950s but felt it was too provocative to be made... with modern materials and capabilities it could easily be made now... talk about opening pandoras box...
    avatar
    ahmedfire

    Posts : 676
    Points : 846
    Join date : 2010-11-11
    Location : egypt

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  ahmedfire on Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:41 pm


    Clinton offers Gulf states joint AMD shield against Iran No

    US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has proposed improved collaboration with Gulf Arab states on maritime security and missile defense to counter potential threats from Iran.

    Clinton told a security conference in Saudi Arabia on Saturday that US commitment to the Gulf is "rock-solid and unwavering." She stressed the US and Gulf governments share concerns about Iran's nuclear activity and that partnership with the US has "enormous potential'' to advance common interests.

    Raising security ties from a bilateral to a multilateral level, Clinton is breaking new ground by taking part in the first strategic cooperation forum between Washington and the six-country Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

    She said the US and Gulf States should take "practical and specific steps to strengthen mutual security, such as helping militaries improve interoperability, cooperate on maritime security and missile defense, and coordinate responses to crises." US officials have said it is a US "priority" to help the GCC build a "regional missile defense architecture" against what they see as a looming ballistic missile threat from Iran.

    Earlier, the Pentagon unveiled plans to deploy elements of its global antiballistic missile defense system in Asia and the Middle East. American plans for the Middle East include the promotion of "interoperability and information-sharing" among members of the Gulf Cooperation Council as they acquire greater missile-defense capabilities. The countries involved are Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman.

    On Friday, Clinton met with Saudi King Abdullah to discuss regional military strategy, primarily coordination among the Arab Gulf states on how to unite their defensive capacities into a cohesive regional strategy.

    The United States is already planning to sell defensive missile technology to the UAE, which along with Saudi Arabia ranks among the more militarily advanced. But Washington wants the big and small Gulf governments to reconcile their distrust of each other and develop a united long-term missile defense architecture.

    Clinton has also announced Saturday that talks aimed at preventing Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon would resume on April 13 in Turkey. She stressed, however, that time is running out for diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program, saying Iran's "window of opportunity'' for a peaceful resolution "will not remain open forever.''

    She also expressed doubt about whether Iran has any intention of negotiating a solution that satisfies the US, Israel and other countries that believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

    "We enter into these talks with a sober perspective about Iran's intentions. It is incumbent upon Iran to demonstrate by its actions that it is a willing partner and to participate in these negotiations with an effort to obtain concrete results,'' she said.

    Iran and the six nations, the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China, met in Istanbul fourteen months ago. But the talks ended after two days with the sides unable to agree on what to talk about. New round of talks will take place amid increased international concern over Iran's uranium enrichment activity and speculation that the US or Israel may be gearing up for military action. The US, Israel and some Arab countries accuse Iran of trying to build nuclear weapons, but the Islamic republic insists its program is solely for peaceful energy and research purposes.

    Saturday's talks have also covered ways to pressure Syrian President Bashar Assad to end a crackdown on the uprising against his rule. Before heading to Turkey for a 60-nation 'Friends of Syria' meeting Sunday, Clinton said that attacks on rebels have continued despite Assad's acceptance of UN mediator Kofi Annan's plan to end the crisis. That plan includes an immediate cease-fire and an eventual democratic transition.

    Clinton said officials meeting in Turkey would discuss "additional steps to increase pressure on the regime, provide humanitarian assistance despite the efforts of the regime to block access and advance plans for an inclusive, democratic and orderly transition that addresses the aspirations of the Syrian people.'' She has also stressed that US position on Assad remains unchanged and "must go".

    http://rt.com/news/gulf-states-missile-defense-933/



    Corrosion

    Posts : 190
    Points : 205
    Join date : 2010-10-19

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Corrosion on Fri Apr 06, 2012 7:42 pm

    GarryB wrote:Talk about destabilising...
    I agree GarryB. What if your enemy shoots it down. What are the consequences when the debris fall on ground. What if people are killed or radiation poisoned? Wont that equal to a sort of nuclear/chemical attack. You would definitely put your enemy in dilemma, how to strike back at you? What if your enemy is nuclear weapons state. More of the reason for more countries to have nuclear weapons and strong defenses and form alliances. Talk about destabilizing....
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 07, 2012 2:16 am

    A cruise missile flying at mach 3 at low level would be an enormous task to hit efficiently and even if you hit it it would need to be before it gets to your territory.

    Both Russia and the US have directions from which the likelyhood an ICBM attack is very very low so there are not many defences pointed in that direction... the obvious example for the US is its southern border where drug filled cessnas penetrate US airspace at will.

    Another aspect is that the old 1950s system was huge... with modern electronics and materials and nuclear power technology a modern missile could be a small fraction of the size of the old missiles... in fact they could probably base the design of the weapon on Granit or enlarged Onyx. In fact Onyx already uses ramjet propulsion... a nuclear powered scramjet version would have a heat speed limit only... a normal jet engine chokes on supersonic speed air so even at supersonic flight speeds the intake narrows and restricts the air coming in to the engine to make it subsonic by the time it enters the engine. With a scramjet the fuel is burnt supersonically so no need to reduce the speed of the air going into the air intake and therefore flight speed can go as high as orbital speed... it would be an efficient way to get into space.

    In fact as there are two options for nuclear powered engines... one being dirty direct drive and the other being clean indirect drive if scramjet technology could be perfected then a nuclear powered indirect drive scramjet powered aircraft might be the future of getting to space stations,,, large amounts of slush (ie very cold) hydrogen could be stored on board and pumped through the front skin of the aircraft to cool it as it accelerates to leave the atmosphere and then outside the atmosphere close the intake and use the slush hydrogen superheated by the nuclear reactor to blast out the rear of the space craft like a rocket... actually no... liquid nitrogen instead of hydrogen. 70% of the earths atmosphere is nitrogen and it is totally inert so it is totally safe even when mixed with oxygen inside the atmosphere. The reason to use hydrogen is to burn as fuel but with the nuclear heat source you don't need to burn the hydrogen with oxygen to create rocket fuel... which means all the oxygen on board can be kept for breathing. The slush nitrogen will cool the aircraft skin just as slush hydrogen would and when superheated in the reactor it would expand into a gas inside the engine which would blast out the back in space as thrust. Nitrogen is a heavier element so the exhaust velocity will be lower than with hydrogen but it should still do the job of manoeuvring in empty space...

    You could even unify the reactor and have an ion engine to leave earths orbit... and go to the moon or mars or whereever.

    The point about the nuclear armed nuclear powered cruise missile is that the enemy will not start a war with you if you have them because his ABM shield will not stop such weapons and the radiation they leave in their wake just from the engines will be devastating to the human population and these things could fly for decades... and a mach 3 shockwave at ground level would have the effect of an explosive bomb... it could destroy buildings and kill people... 24/7 and of course you would never hear it coming as it would be traveling at almost a kilometre a second.

    As an anti ABM concept I think even the US will realise that given a choice between protection from Iranian ICBMs that don't exist and Russian development of such technology, or vulnerability to non-existent Iranian ICBMs and no nuclear powered super doomsday cruise missiles... I rather suspect they will choose the latter.

    The most important thing is the Russians don't need to spend a cent in development and it will actually save the US taxpayer trillions of dollars, though I am sure the US military will find another way to spend that money...
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Sujoy on Wed May 23, 2012 6:04 pm

    Last month Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev had said that NATO"s Missile defense could intercept Russian ballistic missiles by 2020 .

    With today's successful launch of the next generation ICBM , Russia it seems has made the NATO Missile shield irrelevant . According to Russian military sources this missile substantially upgrades the technology used by its already feared Topol-M and Yars systems.This missile is using a new type of fuel that helps reduce the time required to operate the propellants in the active stage of the rocket's trajectory . This makes it more difficult to detect and easier to manoeuvre. Interfax said the weapon is also equipped with individual warheads that can change course to avoid being shot down.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 24, 2012 11:18 am

    An ABM shield might be irrelevant for this new missile, but what percentage of Russias nuclear deterrent will this missile make up in 2020, and how will further growth of the US ABM systems effect this situation.

    The US is now in talks with ME countries... that means a potential UK US system, a system in Europe, a system in the ME, they have suggested a system with India... and of course the talks with Japan and South Korea for a system there...

    At what point do the Russians say enough... you can have your ABM systems all over the place, but in the interests of preventing a nuclear war they want their deterrent to be effective and they will now position a nuclear warhead in all their future satellite launches with a small deorbit rocket motor that can be triggered when needed to shower the whole world with nuclear explosions as a deterrent so they never have to worry about nuclear war.
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Sujoy on Thu May 24, 2012 1:56 pm

    An ABM shield might be irrelevant for this new missile, but what percentage of Russias nuclear deterrent will this missile make up in 2020, and how will further growth of the US ABM systems effect this situation.

    The US ABM system is at best - a dark horse . Simulations after simulations carried out by individuals/organizations in the US have clearly proved that present day US SAM's will "nudge" an incoming warhead but will not be able to destroy it completely. So there has to be a quantum leap in ABM technology in the US for it to effectively field an ABM system that can intercept incoming Russian ballistic missiles. In the guise of stationing ABM systems in foreign countries the US is actually looking for more funding for it's ABM system . A few gullible states in the Gulf might well fall into this trap .

    And by 2020 Russia will be able to fine tune all it's ICBM's to penetrate any NATO missile defense shield . I would hope that Russia increase it's defense budget significantly over the coming years . Even China spends close to $150 billion in defense annually . The Russian defense budget should therefore be in the vicinity of $150 billion - $200 billion . With the exception of China only Russia can afford a huge defense budget because it does not run a huge current account deficit like India .


    At what point do the Russians say enough... you can have your ABM systems all over the place, but in the interests of preventing a nuclear war they want their deterrent to be effective and they will now position a nuclear warhead in all their future satellite launches with a small deorbit rocket motor that can be triggered when needed to shower the whole world with nuclear explosions as a deterrent so they never have to worry about nuclear war.

    If push comes to shove , Russia will activate missile sites in Greece , Venezuela and possibly even in Cuba . "Old Europe" does not have the stomach for this or maybe they have grown wiser . Hopefully , sense will prevail in "New Europe" or else they might well be turned by Russia into a "parking lot " for ABM systems
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 25, 2012 12:53 am

    The problem is that ABM systems are completely unregulated.

    There is no agreement or structure that would demand the US tell the Russians anything... like their hit to kill payloads are working out to be too expensive so they decided... without telling anyone especially their allies, that they will replace the hit to kill payloads with nuclear warheads. The US doesn't care about a few more nuclear explosions over asia or europe or the middle east... this is all about making the US safe from everything.
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Sujoy on Mon May 28, 2012 10:39 am

    Russia does not actually need an ICBM to neutralize NATO missile shield .Russia can simply deploy Iskander-M missiles armed with a Thermobaric warhead in the Baltic enclave of Kaliningrad and around Russia's periphery, in order to be able to strike quickly against US missile defense systems.Given the fact that the Iskander uses special composite materials to reduce the radar signature of the missile to evade targeting radars employed by enemy surveillance sensors, UAVs and smart weapons it becomes that much more difficult for NATO to intercept an incoming Iskander.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 28, 2012 12:22 pm

    It certainly could, but how can it continue to follow the new Start treaty in good faith when the US is undermining the value of balance of that treaty.

    This is not about the US plans for 2013, this is about US plans for 2020 and beyond.

    The current plans for 2020 include comments about a ballistic missile shield able to deal with any threat.

    This potentially renders Russias nuclear deterrent questionable... remember the system can never be fully tested against Russian assets, so it really doesn't matter whether it is an effective ABM system or not.

    The belief that it might be effective is enough to make the US think it is no longer dealing with a Russia that can seriously damage it. In effect the US will start treating Russia the way it treats Iraq and Iran.

    It doesn't matter if it turns out that all these ABM systems are ineffective against Russian weapons... by then it is too late.

    Russia doesn't object to the US ABM system because it wants to attack the US... it objects to the US ABM system because it doesn't want to have to attack the US.

    MAD requires no trust at all, and no broken promise or stab in the back change of leadership in the US will effect the stability and peace as long as the US can wipe Russia off the map and Russia can do the same to the US.

    For Russia it makes the most sense to object now and nip it all in the bud before either the US and Russia have spend a ridiculous amount of money on something that will never be needed.

    Plan B is to analyse the new system and look at simple and cheap ways of undermining it, so the US wastes a lot of money and gets a white elephant that helps them sleep at night with the false sense of security they seem so desperate to get.

    Either way the US is going to be spending billions it really doesn't seem to have right now, but the American people just don't seem to care... so why should I?

    Worst case scenario for Russia is to simply withdraw from the INF treaty and the new Start treaty and also the convention that bans nuclear weapons in space. All future Russian military satellites can be fitted to carry small nuclear weapons... lots of nukes going off in space above Europe and Japan and the US will blind most assets using radar and IR sensors long enough to let enough missiles through to do the job.

    The irony is that the US relies on space based assets and the INF and new Start agreements are useful to them too... much more useful than a system that might stop a missile that Iran might launch at the US... but even that logic is flawed because the act of building an ABM system pretty much guarantees a sensible enemy will find some much cheaper and easier way to deliver a warhead to the US... they could smuggle a nuclear weapon to Turkey and then Fed Ex it to the US... marked urgent. Subsonic low flying cruise missiles are much cheaper and easier to make than ICBMs and hidden on a container ship it could be launched mid atlantic off a container ship in the middle of the night and no one would have any idea what hit them.

    Even a nuclear powered and nuclear armed torpedo fired from the African coast with no impact fuse and set to run at 20knts at a depth that will prevent it hitting any ships and it can run for days or weeks and when it gets to a certain geographic location it can rise and navigate its way into a port and blow up the whole port... GPS is quite accurate around the US and at 20 knots speed civilian GPS signals would be accurate enough.
    avatar
    AMosienko

    Posts : 3
    Points : 4
    Join date : 2012-05-24
    Location : London, United Kingdom

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  AMosienko on Mon May 28, 2012 6:16 pm

    Europe is more concerned about Russia's nuclear weapons . It fully understands it doesn't have a chance against Russia's unconventional weapons.

    Austin

    Posts : 6335
    Points : 6735
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Austin on Fri Jul 06, 2012 10:14 am


    Firebird

    Posts : 953
    Points : 985
    Join date : 2011-10-14

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Firebird on Fri Jul 06, 2012 4:53 pm

    The people that matter in Europe, don't have any problem with Russia. France, Italy, Germany and the rest. Its only American shit-stirrers that even want to think about this ABM crap.
    And Britain has as much to gain working WITH rather than against Russia.

    Putin needs to start talking about "protecting Cuba's sovereignty" and the like.
    ie Russian ABM and hypersonic planes based in Cuba. Might stop this idiotic American posturing for redneck (trailer trash) voters in Hicksville USA.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:06 pm

    And Britain has as much to gain working WITH rather than against Russia.

    But you can't tell them that... they seem to think Russia is a naughty little boy and needs democracy lessons from the west in general and the UK in particular.

    The UK is the rich kid growing up that had everything (like India) and Russia was the poor kid who didn't have anything. The UK was always scared Russia was going to pinch something... like India.
    It seems that India made friends with Russia because Russia didn't treat India like it was their parent.

    Even today Britain thinks its influence and effect on India and the rest of the world was largely positive... of course they never saw all the violence and brutality needed to force the natives into line.

    Of course most European naval countries did it too and probably think they spread civilisation to the world, when in most cases what they spread was destructive consumerism. They consider themselves culturally diverse because they eat curries and chinese food at their takeaways.

    To be honest I think Russia should trade with Europe, but not expect any real friendship... at least for a few generations to get their chips off their shoulders. There are plenty of countries around the world who would be interested in fair honest trade relations. Wouldn't expect too much from some countries under the western thumb like Australia or part of it like the UK, but asian countries, central and south american countries, and african countries will likely want a change from the west.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3247
    Points : 3353
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Poland to host Aegis BMD

    Post  flamming_python on Tue Oct 23, 2012 1:56 am

    Man this is hilarious, when will these n00bs learn?  Very Happy

    http://rt.com/politics/poland-missile-defense-invest-791/

    New arms race? Poland to spend fortune on missile defense

    Warsaw plans to expend up to US$400 million on the creation of its missile defense system as Russia promises to deploy weapons close to Poland’s borders in response to the proposed American AMD shield.

    The US missile defense shield in Europe – which Russia sees as a threat to its national security – has been a bone of contention between Moscow and NATO. Washington claims there is no threat, but has refused to provide legally-binding guarantees that the system would not be used against Russia.

    Moscow underlined that, though it has every capability of adequately responding to the shield’s deployment, it would prefer Washington's plans to be reviewed. No matter what terms the American side uses, the missile defense plan "is still an element of an arms race," President Vladimir Putin said earlier.

    As part of the project, the US plans to station SM-3 missile interceptor site in Poland by 2018.

    Russia in response announced it would deploy Iskander missiles systems in its westernmost region Kaliningrad (bordering Poland and Lithuania) to counter the threat. Earlier this year, a top Russian military official also raised the possibility of a possible pre-emptive strike on the European missile system if the US refuses a dialogue.

    Warsaw considers the Russian move as “blackmailing which would have been impossible if Poland had powerful missile defense,” believes the head of the country’s National Security Bureau, General Koziej, reports Polish Gazeta Wyborcza paper.

    There is another reason behind Poland’s decision to develop its own shield: missile attack is the most likely military threat in the modern world. In addition, the possibility of a single ballistic blow – when it is difficult to identify the aggressor – is highly likely, the Polish Security Bureau head observed. A prompt reaction would be necessary in case of such a scenario, while NATO would take its time and think before providing help to its member-state.

    The preliminary concept of the project has already been developed, the paper writes. Under the plan, by 2023 Poland should be ready to repulse a missile attack against a group of its forces, cities or important facilities. Providing a shield for the whole territory of the country is not possible yet.

    The system will be mobile and it will be integrated in to NATO missile defense. The alliance will be able to use it in case of a serious crisis.
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5680
    Points : 5708
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  TR1 on Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:10 am

    "Earlier this year, a top Russian military official also raised the possibility of a possible pre-emptive strike on the European missile system if the US refuses a dialogue."


    Who writes this crap?

    Poland being someone elses bitch and a drama queen, what else is new?
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16536
    Points : 17144
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  GarryB on Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:26 am

    I wouldn't have much confidence in SM-3 effectively countering Iskander let alone what they will have in service in 2018.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3247
    Points : 3353
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:14 am

    Speaking of which, what will Russia have in service in 2018? Any Iskander upgrade or replacement on the horizon? I love you
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Sujoy on Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:05 am

    There is this $1.2 billion Iskander M upgradation program specifically designed to take out any missile shields in Europe. This allocation will ensure the speedy development of the R 500 Iskander K that will have a 2000km range.

    In it's current form neither SM 3 nor PAC 3 can intercept the Iskander M because the optically guided warhead,can be controlled by encrypted radio transmission, even those originating from UAVs and AWACs.

    avatar
    flamming_python

    Posts : 3247
    Points : 3353
    Join date : 2012-01-30

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  flamming_python on Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:54 pm

    Sujoy wrote:There is this $1.2 billion Iskander M upgradation program specifically designed to take out any missile shields in Europe. This allocation will ensure the speedy development of the R 500 Iskander K that will have a 2000km range.

    In it's current form neither SM 3 nor PAC 3 can intercept the Iskander M because the optically guided warhead,can be controlled by encrypted radio transmission, even those originating from UAVs and AWACs.


    Iskander-K - isn't that just a cruise missile launch platform? What the hell is so special about that? They can be intercepted by any air defense system in contrast to the Iskander-M which is far more capable.

    Sponsored content

    Re: NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:16 am