Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    NATO ΑΒΜ Shield in Europe and Russia's response

    Share

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:55 am

    GarryB wrote:NATO already has lots of radars looking into Russian airspace, the baltic countries have some fairly large very long range NATO radars to "protect their airspace" that can look deep into Russia, and of course they have a fully constellation of satellites for early warning and preliminary trajectory information

    They do but these are Early Warning radar , they provides the tripwire functionality and general information on Missile launch , they do not provide missile quality track data from launch.

    So even if they detect the launch and then wait for ICBM to ascend do that the X band radar can provide track quality data and compute for launch intercept , it will be too late and most ICBM launched from Russia will have moved on.

    Russia enjoys unparalleled land mass advantage and they can deploy their missile any where in their territory even the mobile ones as per New Start , so any NATO ABM can do not much in case of full scale nuclear attack.

    I very much suspect a likely Russian move would be a mirror of the US move to withdraw from the ABM treaty, and will likely involve a withdrawl from the INF treaty with the Russians developing a range of missiles to point specifically at Europe and China and Japan so that their strategic missiles will not be vulnerable to a European based ABM system because they will all be aimed over the north pole.

    It will depend on how NATO cooperates with Russia on Europe Missile defence , Russia has sent a clear message that not involving Russia in Europe missile defence will be certain retaliation from Russia , since it would be seen as an extension of US ABM aimed at Russia.


    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:17 am

    The Russians aren't worried that the US will base an ABM system that will wipe out their entire ICBM fleet at launch.

    The Russians know that ABM systems are completely unregulated so when one pops up in Europe... but it is OK because they are spending trillions of dollars to stop ICBMs that Iran doesn't have... that Japan will think they will need a similar system to protect them from NK missiles and then another system pops up in Japan and of course all the money spent on these systems will develop new technologies that can be built in the US too. All of a sudden there are three ABM systems all around Russia... by then it will be too late to object.

    The simple matter of reality is that START is an agreement between Russia and the US that does not include NATO or China or Japan or South Korea etc etc. The US has the conventional forces to deal with any real threat to the US but Russia does not actually currently have that luxury.

    The result is that an attack on the US would require an attack on Europe... particularly France and the UKs nuclear weapons and most likely the US bases in Europe... especially those with tactical nuclear weapons.

    An ABM system in Europe that is designed to stop Iranian missiles that don't exist can certainly be used to stop the 5-10 missiles directed at US assets in Europe. It wont be intercepting them on their way over the North Pole headed for the US, it will intercept them over Poland and the Ukraine and Eastern Europe on their way to the UK and France.

    For the same reasons if Russia is launching nuclear missiles at the US it will be expecting to be wiped out by the reply so it will likely also target countries like Japan and China to ensure the "love" is shared to all those countries that supported Russias enemies or acted like Russias enemy.

    ...no point in destroying the US several times over if the conventional forces of China and Europe then march in and take over the ashes of Russia.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Pakistan

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

    Post  nightcrawler on Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:48 am

    Don't you feel uneasy in writing all this Sad
    For the same reasons if Russia is launching nuclear missiles at the US it will be expecting to be wiped out by the reply so it will likely also target countries like Japan and China to ensure the "love" is shared to all those countries that supported Russias enemies or acted like Russias enemy.

    ...no point in destroying the US several times over if the conventional forces of China and Europe then march in and take over the ashes of Russia.
    avatar
    Viktor

    Posts : 5669
    Points : 6312
    Join date : 2009-08-25
    Age : 37
    Location : Croatia

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

    Post  Viktor on Mon Feb 07, 2011 1:00 pm

    Thats the logic applied by both nuclear superpowers.

    If Russia/US goes to nuclear exchange, in a matter of hours both countries will reduce each other to dust and its population/economy etc would never ever be able to

    catch other countries no matter how far you look in to the future. For that reason in order to ensure its supremacy in post nuclear world all others countries must also

    be reduced to the dust so all world starts all over from the scratch now in postnuclear world and US / USSR would have chances to rise again to a same lvl as they are

    now.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:58 pm

    Don't you feel uneasy in writing all this

    I don't like it any more than you do, but I hardly think the Russians want to wipe out the US and be 90% wiped out by the US response only to find that the Chinese, with their forces largely intact because they kept quiet have started moving into Russia looking for useful stuff and slave labour and the EU is doing the same from the west.

    Civilisation broke down in New Orleans when flood water filled a part of the city and for the most part the people there waited for outside help to come and solve the problem. People were sitting on motorway overpasses in the sun 100m from the stadium officials told them to go to for help but they wouldn't or couldn't swim 100m? Not that conditions in the stadium were that much better after a few days.

    Then you look at Africa and some guy carries his mother in law 200 miles over a mountain range to get to an aide station.

    People in the west are getting very soft and if a global catastrophe happens like a nuclear war or an asteroid impact I think most of the so called civilised western world will just fall to pieces. Without electricity most western cultures would fail after about 2 weeks. In some cultures on this planet they would do something about it as a community, but in the west it is more about me me me.

    Besides if everyone things a nuclear war will just involve Russia and the US destroying each other then a large section of the world will look forward to such a thing. If they realise it will actually effect everyone then they will not be keen to see it happen.

    Pervius

    Posts : 247
    Points : 267
    Join date : 2011-03-08

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

    Post  Pervius on Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:48 pm

    There is no reason for a nuclear war between US-Russia. If it came up for a vote today most Americans would elect Putin as US President.

    Both countries are facing huge population loss from Baby Boomer Generation which created nuclear arsenals....all dying off.

    If Russia and US can avert War both countries will finally see their economy come back after old people die off. We all just need to survive trying to provide for all the old people. Hence why Russia and US people are suffering in poverty. Too many old people to clothe/feed.

    1/3rd of US will be dead by 2020. Russia and US will have to join together to survive Chinese Century of domination. We both will be minority countries in the world soon.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Fri Mar 18, 2011 1:10 am


    If Russia and US can avert War both countries will finally see their
    economy come back after old people die off. We all just need to survive
    trying to provide for all the old people. Hence why Russia and US
    people are suffering in poverty. Too many old people to clothe/feed.

    This is something else that bothers me about civilised western culture... they see old people as a burden.
    Families with both parents working pay hundreds of dollars a week for childcare, in other cultures the grandparents share in the upbringing of the grandkids.

    Things need to change.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Sat Mar 19, 2011 5:11 am

    Pervius wrote:There is no reason for a nuclear war between US-Russia. If it came up for a vote today most Americans would elect Putin as US President.

    Both countries are facing huge population loss from Baby Boomer Generation which created nuclear arsenals....all dying off.

    If Russia and US can avert War both countries will finally see their economy come back after old people die off. We all just need to survive trying to provide for all the old people. Hence why Russia and US people are suffering in poverty. Too many old people to clothe/feed.

    1/3rd of US will be dead by 2020. Russia and US will have to join together to survive Chinese Century of domination. We both will be minority countries in the world soon.

    what
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Pakistan

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

    Post  nightcrawler on Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:17 pm

    @GarryB
    Families with both parents working pay hundreds of dollars a week for childcare, in other cultures the grandparents share in the upbringing of the grandkids.

    Like typical Asian cultures of India & Pakistan. Really Grands can play a brilliant role in upbringing kids while parents including mothers can go on with their professional life while children being cared within the hands of ones own relatives. Though I do admit mostly here women aren't meant to work its regarded as something unIslamic but in real there isn't any thing like that in our religion [but present in our culture]. Sorry if I am off-topic

    So Grry you a Grandfather yet?? tongue
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:46 am

    So Grry you a Grandfather yet??

    Not that I know of... Embarassed

    It is my understanding that in Russian culture the grandparents often filled that child care role... hey if they brought you up OK then they should cope with your kids... and how can you know how a baby sitter will cope?

    Especially as most babysitters are teenage girls with no experience of bringing up children... unlike grandparents.

    I think the west has a lot it can learn from other cultures and respect for older people is one of them.

    Here in New Zealand we spend enormous amounts on Prisoners each year and not nearly as much on the elderly or disabled.

    Sorry for off topic.

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:48 pm

    My observation is the women should take care of child and family while men should/go to work , the old ways works best , all this men and women working creates long term problem for the child and its upbringing. In a way I like the Asian cultures compared to western ones on this topic.

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:52 pm

    Source Military Parade, No. 1, 2011, page(s): 12-15

    EUROPEAN MISSILE DEFENCE DEVELOPMENT PROBLEMS AND OPTIONS

    Author: Andrei Mikhailov

    Andrei Mikhailov, special correspondent of the Military Parade magazine

    Addressing the entire international community, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev made a crucial statement during his visit to India in late 2010: "Any curtain, any wall, whether ideological or technological, is dangerous." The ideological wall collapsed just over two decades ago, simultaneously with the symbolic fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. However, the technological barrier, which prevents partnership integration of the countries to strengthen security, remains intact.

    Mikhail Gorbachev was the first to use the term 'partnership' with regard to defence during Soviet-American negotiations. At first, the attitude to this word was extremely wary. Two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall the-then US President Ronald Reagan, making a speech at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin, had urged Mikhail Gorbachev: "General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace... tear down this wall!" Nowadays, the appeal to 'tear down the wall' is made in reverse - addressing the NATO-Russia Summit in Lisbon in November 2010, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called on NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and 28 NATO heads of state to get over the mistrust and become equal partners: "If Russia takes a corresponding part in the NATO missile defence programme, participates in the dialogue, plays a certain role in developing a joint missile defence system..., it will be acceptable for us."

    This appeal was primarily addressed to the US, since Europe is as concerned as Russia about the terms and conditions of deploying the global missile defence shield. At the 11th Missile Defence Conference, hosted by the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies (RUSI) in 2010, head of the US Cevasco International, a company specialising in defence cooperation and aerospace defence, Frank Cevasco pointed out that, according to experts, outsourcing of the global missile defence deployment, with European states playing a secondary role of hosting US missile defence system elements on their territories, would make Europe subordinate to the US, deprive it of its voting right, and fail to solve the entire range of European security problems. Europe has its own missile defence potential and invests in new projects, though they are less ambitious than those of the US.

    However, while the US and Europe have managed to overcome the legacy of previous wars and become allies, the Russian brass have yet to erase the German Fulda Gap, a section of territory between the former East German border and Western Europe, from their maps. History proves that it was fear, rather than goodwill, that launched the process of nuclear arms control and partnership. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 became the critical moment. The-then US President John F. Kennedy ordered the US Armed Forces to be put on Level 2 combat readiness (DEFCON 1 (defence readiness condition), i.e. preparations for nuclear missile launches).

    Addressing a round table meeting on the US-Russian nuclear arms control at the Brookings Institution, Washington DC, in 2009, chair of the meeting, former Deputy Secretary of State (1994-2001) Strobe Talbott called on nuclear powers to take on greater responsibility, team up their efforts, and establish defence cooperation. To make a pun on the acronym of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START III), signed this year, let's say the process got off to a good start. It is the beginning of a new stage, the motto of which should be 'trust' between Russia and the USA, and Russia and NATO, because otherwise missile defence integration will be next to impossible.

    Three Points of European Missile Defence Development

    How to start deploying a joint missile defence system, given the ever increasing threat of surprise ground-, sea-, air-, and even space-based ballistic missile strikes, involving nuclear, chemical, or biological WMDs? Will this process be based on the principle of complementarity, or will the parties remain counter-partners?

    At the present time it is dramatically important not only to define the missile defence deterrence strategy, but to choose the best option after examining
    all aspects, all possible threats and challenges. This is exactly what NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy James Appathurai talked about at a news conference in Moscow in February 2011. He outlined three points of development in the ongoing international discussion of the specific European missile defence structure.

    The first 'point of development' is the most complicated issue of reaching a consensus on the best technical and organisational algorithms of taking a decision on engaging a target within the framework of the joint information component of the NATO and the Russian missile defence systems, including their transparency.

    James Appathurai underlined that there would be completely independent, though mutually coordinated, NATO and Russian missile defence systems. He added that the best solution should be arrived at, and that NATO would be defending its territory, and Russia its own territory. "It is only NATO's responsibility to defend its territories and we cannot pass this responsibility to anyone else. It is clear that Russia is going to protect its territory itself and will not give up this duty. It would also seem strange if Russia asked the other part for permission to defend its territory," he pointed out, stating that the best missile defence system structure should not undermine the defence potential and the sovereignty of any country, involved in the joint missile defence.

    The logic of averting a missile threat consists in detecting and knocking down an incoming missile as soon as possible. However, experts started disagreeing on whether NATO or Russia should, for instance, knock down ballistic missiles, posing a threat to Europe, over the territory of a non-member state, for example, Russia, Ukraine, or Georgia?

    NATO has already embarked on developing sophisticated automatic command and control (C2) systems, based on top-notch technologies, for the joint Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) system. It tests interoperability of different national air command and control systems so that they could function as a single C2 centre, given a decisionmaking time limit of less than one minute. NATO expands the number of allies, integrated into the revamped missile defence system, adds mobile components, based wherever possible, and exchanges tactical and intelligence data. As a result, every national C2 body will get access to a more complete and updated digital map, facilitating defence against a wide scope of missile threats.

    The new NATO joint missile defence command structure, the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC), incorporating C2 systems of five allies, including Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, the US, and France, was opened in Germany earlier this year, with the ceremony attended by NATO Deputy Secretary General, Ambassador Claudio Bisogniero. In December 2010 NATO tested its new ALTBMD C2 system. The tests were aimed at checking command and control over the multinational coalition's weapon systems and sensors during a missile interception operation. Claudio Bisogniero officially confirmed that NATO had begun shifting to a new TMD configuration, since the CAOC became operational. Under the decisions, adopted at the Lisbon Summit, the new theatre missile defence system will constitute the backbone of the future strategic European missile defence. The US-French Thales Raytheon Systems was appointed principal technology integrator in the international missile defence market.

    Within the framework of the NATO Air Command and Control First Level of Operational Capability (ACCS LOC1) programme Thales Raytheon Systems is to replace NATO's existing air command and control systems in Europe; set new standards of interoperability for air operations by providing a single, integrated approach, including sensor and weapon system configuration, detection, identification, early warning, monitoring, coverage, air and missile track processing, display, management, and engagement. Interoperability of revamped national C2 systems will lead to an Initial Operational Capability (IOC). The next stage of the theatre missile defence extension, headed by the ALTBMD Programme Office, is slated for 2013. The ultimate configuration of the upgraded and integrated TMD system is to cover the entire territory of NATO member-states (Final Operational Capability).

    Balanced Defence


    The second 'point of development' in the international discussion of the European missile defence is the partnership network of its participants. What should the logic of partnership be? What should the format of cooperation within the framework of the joint missile defence system be? NATO's Deputy Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs and Security Policy James Appathurai emphasised that in order to establish NATO-Russia partnership within the framework of the joint missile defence it was necessary to clearly realise the goal of and the reason for the project. He said that the main political message of joint missile defence efforts was that NATO did not expect Russia to deliver a nuclear strike, and neither did NATO have such plans. James Appathurai stressed that the European missile defence system was not designed to undermine

    Russia's deterrent potential, and that NATO and Russia should jointly counter increasing missile threats. He also called on the Russian side not to resort to resounding statements on counter-measures during negotiations and not to attempt to define the last steps when the joint work had only started.

    Only two countries possessed nuclear missiles in the early 1970s. At the present time in excess of 30 states either have or seek to develop missile technologies, while 44 countries enjoy a nuclear-power engineering capability. Nuclear-capable China and India combined are thrice as large as NATO in terms of population. At the same time India is neither a signatory to the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT), nor a permanent member of the UN Security Council, where only five nuclear powers - the US, Russia, the UK, France, and China - seat on a permanent basis. Therefore, India is maximally distanced from the partnership negotiations. Pakistan and North Korea have not signed the NPT Treaty either. For instance, according to some sources, North Korea possesses more than 1,000 ballistic missiles. Generally, according to data presented at the 11th RUSI Missile Defence Conference, nuclear powers that are not included in the 'Nuclear Five' have a combined total of about 6,000 sub-strategic (non-strategic or theatre) ballistic missiles, capable of delivering a nuclear warhead to the target specified in four (maximum 40) minutes.

    The European missile defence sys tem is considered to be a defensive potential against the threat of nuclear proliferation outside NATO member-states and partner states, involved in the project. In other words integration of missile defence potentials of these countries means that they do not expect missiles strikes against each other and believe that this threat is only posed by those outside of their partnership. It is a fundamental shift in thinking, which on the one hand will lead to a gradual involvement of all nuclear powers in the partnership (otherwise they will be on the list of threats to NATO's security), and on the other hand it will boost development of missile defence technologies in partner states that have yet to acquire such technologies.

    The problem of global defence against a surprise nuclear ballistic missile attack from an unpredictable corner of the compass already prompts the military lobby to develop the best defence option - a stratosphere- or a space-based missile defence system, radar-carrying warships, and modular interoperable missile defence facilities (the so-called 'building blocks' principle) (the latter envisions global integration of the military cooperation market). For instance, the UK has designed the Zephyr High-Altitude Long-Endurance (HALE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), powered by solar batteries, featuring a flight altitude of over 20,000 m, and designed to be used as part of a missile defence system.

    Experts also discuss a possibility of deploying nuclear weapons into orbit - a nuclear warhead may be built into an ordinary satellite (in this case the early warning time will decrease dramatically). Therefore, special attention will be paid to countries capable of launching spacecraft.

    In light of missile defence technologies, development of laser weapons capable of destroying orbital satellites (anti-satellite weapons, ASAT) has seen a significant boost. Ground-, air-, and sea-based laser systems have been tested since the late 1990s. Such projects are pursued by Russia, NATO, and China.

    The third 'point of development' in the international discussion of the European missile defence consists in striking a balance and preventing an arms race, refining international laws on non-proliferation, and preventing escalation of technological rivalry in the defence cooperation market, which may result in negative political consequences. It will be impossible to adequately develop the European missile defence without progressing to the so-called McNamara's figure (US Secretary of Defence Robert Strange McNamara, the Pentagon's famous reformer during the administrations of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Baines Johnson in 1961-1968), i.e. reducing the number of nuclear warheads possessed by each side down to 1,000. The world no longer has economic resources for an unrestrained arms race. As far as the global missile defence is concerned, the US does not have enough resources to cover the whole of Europe; Europe does not have enough resources to build a European missile defence system on its own; Russia does not have enough resources to cover its entire territory; and CIS member-states rely on partnership assistance even more than NATO member-states.

    Robert McNamara once calculated that it would take mere 400 nuclear warheads to completely destroy the US or Russia. Strategic nuclear weapons are just the tip of the iceberg, sub-strategic weapons pose an event greater problem. Theatre nuclear weapons (TNW) have been reduced to a certain extent since the Cold War: NATO has cut its TNWs by 85% (about 240 nuclear warheads are left Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey), Russia by 55% (the number of warheads exceeds 12,000), the US operates over 9,000 TNWs, the UK - 250 pieces, France - up to 400 pieces, China - about 500, India - around 100, and Pakistan - approximately 100.

    James Appathurai pointed out that nuclear arms reductions would only be effective if agreement was reached on missile defence. He said that when talking about nuclear arms reductions it was worth mentioning that there were more nuclear weapons in the world than necessary. However, both NATO and Russia would maintain their nuclear deterrence capabilities so long as nuclear weapons existed, he emphasised. The international community should seek a nuclear-free world and create every necessary condition to this end, he added. Prudent and controlled nuclear arsenals reduction would be the most sensible way to go, he stressed.

    Such a comprehensive approach to the nuclear threat problem is nowadays called "balanced defence". In addition to the balance between offensive and defensive missile technologies, the balanced defence also includes cyber security (cyber attacks can disable missile defence systems, nuclear power plants, etc.), as well as the fight against international terrorism in general (including denial of access to TNW storage facilities).

    The sum vector that will shape the ultimate configuration of the future global missile defence of the XXI century will comprise a great many viewpoints of experts, representing various schools of thought on missile defence and tactical decisions on deploying missile defence system elements, national defence and economic interests of the Allies and the partner countries, and fundamental political views on the progress in WMD non-proliferation and missile threats.
    avatar
    nightcrawler

    Posts : 534
    Points : 650
    Join date : 2010-08-20
    Age : 28
    Location : Pakistan

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

    Post  nightcrawler on Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:42 am

    Austin wrote:My observation is the women should take care of child and family while men should/go to work , the old ways works best , all this men and women working creates long term problem for the child and its upbringing. In a way I like the Asian cultures compared to western ones on this topic.

    Economy & financial constraints as is faced at present may play havoc with your otherwise PROVEN idea
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:06 am

    The modern consumer economy demands the family must have everything... now. We know because advertisers tell us it is so.
    To afford to live in such a society both parents must work and to create jobs must pay someone to look after their children.
    These people must have teaching degrees/qualifications and cannot just monitor the children to make sure they are still alive... every waking moment the children must be entertained, engaged, and educated.

    The irony is that as laws and requirements for care givers become more ridiculous (in Australia they have passed a law to ban caregivers from giving a child a time out or isolating them by sending them to a corner or separate room to cool down... don't even think about physical options.) fewer and fewer people are going to want or be able to do it and the costs will just increase to the point where no one will be able to afford it.

    I know that in the past the woman has brought up the kids and dad has gone to work, but I like the idea of being part of the "bringing the kids up" for the dad. Otherwise the wife gets the short end of the stick because she has to work 24/7, and just as importantly dad misses out on enjoying his kids... and they are his kids too.

    I guess there are no right or wrong answers, but I am not really happy with western solutions so far.

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sun Apr 10, 2011 9:44 am

    Seems wikileaks has shown the real intention of US ABM system

    U.S. wants to use India in missile shield against Russia, China
    Vladimir Radyuhin

    Russian daily quotes WikiLeaks cables to reveal Washington's plan

    The United States has been trying to rope in India for its plans to build a global missile defence system threatening Russia and China, the Komsomoloskaya Pravda, a popular Russian daily published from Moscow reported on Thursday.

    In a story based on the WikiLeaks releases, the report said the U.S. has not only been planning to deploy a missile shield against Russia in Europe, but had also been negotiating with countries along Russia's borders, such as Japan and India, to jointly build missile defences that would also target Russia.

    “The noose [around Russia] is tightening,” the newspaper said. “Thanks to WikiLeaks, it has become known that Washington has been simultaneously conducting talks with countries in other parts of the world for building U.S. missile defences on their territories. Those are different countries, but they form a chain around Russia.”

    A 2007 confidential cable from the U.S. embassy in New Delhi carried by the daily refuted media reports that India had abruptly turned its back on a 2005 agreement with the U.S. to cooperate on missile defences. The cable said the Indian media had misinterpreted remarks by External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee after the Russia-India-China trilateral meeting in Harbin, China, on October 24, 2007. Mr. Mukherjee had dismissed as “groundless” the idea that India was going to join a U.S.-led missile defence system.
    Misconstrued

    “MEA contacts confirm this did not mean India was not interested in continuing to cooperate with the U.S. on missile defence technology and that there has been no change from the current level of bilateral missile defence cooperation,” the U.S. embassy cable said.

    The “MEA contacts” explained that Mr. Mukherjee's comments were “misconstrued” by the Indian press. When Mr. Mukherjee said that “India does not take part in such military arrangements,” the officials said, he had had in mind the U.S. plan to install a missile-detection system in Europe, which his Russian and Chinese counterparts referred to in the same press interaction.

    “MEA Director Amandeep Singh Gill [Disarmament and International Security] confirmed to PolOff on October 26 that Mr. Mukherjee's comment in Harbin cannot be interpreted as a deviation from the status quo of current U.S.-India Military Defence cooperation,” the cable said.

    The embassy recalled: “Then-Defence Minister Mukherjee and SecDef [U.S. Secretary of Defence] Rumsfeld agreed to expand collaboration relating to missile defence in the July 2005 U.S.-India Defence Framework Agreement.”

    Indo-U.S. collaboration on missile defence “has thus far been confined to technical and fact-finding discussions,” the cable said, noting that “the GOI has focused its attention increasingly on developing indigenous MD system capabilities.”
    Ring of systems

    The Russian newspaper said the U.S. had “cast a fishing net over India” to get it to join the U.S. plans for building a ring of missile defence systems encircling Russia.
    Eyeing resources?

    Washington's “plans to deploy missile defences along Russian borders — first in Europe, then in other places — may result in a situation where they will twist our hands to make us share our natural riches,” the daily said.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:33 am

    Don't really see the point of radars or missiles in India to oppose Russia.

    It might be more of a case of an attempt to get into bed with India so the US can start asserting control over Indias nukes.

    The US can't use the IAEA like they do with Iran et al to force them into corners or make them play the games the US wants everyone to play for them.

    Beware the big shiny white straight teeth... what lies behind those eyes would make a crocodile blush.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:29 am

    GarryB wrote:Don't really see the point of radars or missiles in India to oppose Russia.

    It might be more of a case of an attempt to get into bed with India so the US can start asserting control over Indias nukes.

    The US can't use the IAEA like they do with Iran et al to force them into corners or make them play the games the US wants everyone to play for them.

    Beware the big shiny white straight teeth... what lies behind those eyes would make a crocodile blush.

    I'd assume that SM-3s in India would be able to whack nuke silos that are to the east of the Urals. Perhaps Kazakhstan.
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3229
    Points : 3315
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

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

    Post  medo on Mon Apr 11, 2011 4:03 pm

    I'd assume that SM-3s in India would be able to whack nuke silos that are to the east of the Urals. Perhaps Kazakhstan.

    If Russia want to attack US, than ICBMs will fly over Arctic, so I don't think missiles in India will do any help in this case. Also time is working for Russia and US will be more and more broke, so it will be wiser for US to make Russia strong ally, than enemy.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:25 pm

    I'd assume that SM-3s in India would be able to whack nuke silos that are to the east of the Urals. Perhaps Kazakhstan.

    The only large rockets in Kazakhstan are launching satellites at Baikanour... and about half of those are launching western payloads into space at the moment and in the future the non Russian payloads will only increase as the Russians complete their new space port in the East.

    Also time is working for Russia and US will be more and more broke, so
    it will be wiser for US to make Russia strong ally, than enemy.

    You'd think the US would have stepped back at the end of the cold war and said... why are we investing money into Communist China and giving the Ruskies the cold shoulder. Democracy in Russia might not meet the very high standards of the US, but at least they are trying it on for size... which is more than can be said of China.

    Even the very basic thought that the thousands of nuclear warheads the Russians have is really the only actual threat to the US compared to the few hundred China has, or the number Pakistan have etc that it would be in Americas interests to develop closer ties with Russia, and stop treating it like it was still the cold war.

    I am not suggesting treating it like a friend (like you do with communist china still), but not actually treating it like an enemy might lead to closer ties.

    The UK is Americas best buddy in the so called war on terror, yet these two countries have fought against each other. America and Germany and Japan went through difficult times yet they managed to make it civil when they felt it was in their interests to do so.

    The huge irony is that the west was best friends with the Soviet Union at a time when the Soviet Union was supposedly at its most evil... during Stalins rule during the second world war is when most people who claim the Soviet Union was evil point to purges and massacres and NKVD squads shooting more Soviets than Nazis etc etc.

    Of course Stalin was evil because he had a secret pact with Hitler and he stole land in the east after not fighting in the Pacific for most of the war and he closed the iron curtain on eastern europe...

    Of course he appeased hitler just like every other european country did because Britain and Poland did trust him and weren't interested in any other deal.

    Stalin had agreed to enter the Pacific war against Japan through an agreement with the US that didn't want to have to fight the Japs alone in the east.

    And eastern europe were happily signed over to Stalin by Britain and the US well before the war ended.
    avatar
    IronsightSniper

    Posts : 450
    Points : 458
    Join date : 2010-09-25
    Location : California, USA

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

    Post  IronsightSniper on Tue Apr 12, 2011 12:42 am

    medo wrote:
    I'd assume that SM-3s in India would be able to whack nuke silos that are to the east of the Urals. Perhaps Kazakhstan.

    If Russia want to attack US, than ICBMs will fly over Arctic, so I don't think missiles in India will do any help in this case. Also time is working for Russia and US will be more and more broke, so it will be wiser for US to make Russia strong ally, than enemy.

    We're going broke now? Rolling Eyes
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1166
    Points : 2054
    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 Apr 12, 2011 1:49 am

    IronsightSniper wrote:
    medo wrote:
    I'd assume that SM-3s in India would be able to whack nuke silos that are to the east of the Urals. Perhaps Kazakhstan.

    If Russia want to attack US, than ICBMs will fly over Arctic, so I don't think missiles in India will do any help in this case. Also time is working for Russia and US will be more and more broke, so it will be wiser for US to make Russia strong ally, than enemy.

    We're going broke now? Rolling Eyes

    Well techinally yes state budgets are in the red. Examples New York, Calfornia, Florida, Arizona etc
    Even Obama had to beg for the Repbulicans/ Tea Party to accept compromise on the national budget on Friday.
    avatar
    Russian Patriot

    Posts : 1166
    Points : 2054
    Join date : 2009-07-21
    Age : 26
    Location : USA- although I am Russian

    Russia outlines its vision of European missile shield

    Post  Russian Patriot on Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:04 am



    Russia outlines its vision of European missile shield
    02:12 29/04/2011


    Commander of Russian Space Forces Lt. Gen. Oleg Ostapenko outlined on Friday Russia's proposals for the future European missile defense network.

    Russia and NATO agreed to cooperate on the so-called Euro missile shield during the Russia-NATO Council summit in Lisbon in November 2010. NATO insists there should be two independent systems that exchange information, while Russia favors a joint system with full-scale interoperability.

    "We are ready to develop together with NATO experts on missile defense the architecture of this [joint] network, from the concept and selection of the best sites for the deployment of radars and interceptors to the set up and operation of joint data processing and control centers," Ostapenko said in an interview with Izvestia daily newspaper.

    The general said it would be logical and efficient to create a network of "sector" defenses where each member state or group of states would assume responsibility for intercepting and destroying ballistic missiles over assigned territory.

    Russia is ready to provide a "missile shield" over Eastern Europe, the Black Sea, the Barents Sea and the Baltic Sea, Ostapenko said, adding that a decision to deploy missile defenses must be coordinated by a joint command center on the basis of information provided by a joint data processing center.

    "In order to ensure a reliable and uniform exchange of information it is necessary to set up a joint data processing center which would obtain, process and relay target data to a joint fire control center," he said.

    Russian military specialists must be part of teams operating these centers on rotation basis, the general added.


    © Photo The Russian Federation Ministry of Defence
    Commander of Russian Space Forces Lt. Gen. Oleg Ostapenko
    Ostapenko stressed that Russia had no plans to place interceptor missiles outside its territory.

    Russia has retained staunch opposition to the planned deployment of U.S. missile defense systems near its borders, claiming they would be a security threat. NATO and the United States insist that the shield would defend NATO members against missiles from North Korea and Iran and would not be directed at Russia.

    Ostapenko said a joint missile defense network would alleviate Russia's concerns over potential missile threats from NATO.

    "In case of a joint missile defense network, there would be no need to place missile systems on the territory of the countries protected by the Russian missile umbrella," the general said.

    In addition, cooperation in the framework of the European missile shield would allow all the participants to cut the expenses on the project because NATO will need to protect less territory on its own, Ostapenko said.

    http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20110429/163762332.html

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:12 am

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16688
    Points : 17296
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

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

    Post  GarryB on Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:12 am

    Indeed the future development of what is supposed to be a defence system to protect from rogue launches from Iran or North Korea clearly shows progression to an all purpose ABM shield to protect from all sorts of missile types from practically anywhere.

    The fact that the West will not put in writing that the system will not be used against Russia missiles clearly shows that verbal promises that this system will not be used against Russia is like the promises made earlier like no NATO expansion beyond the integration of East Germany into NATO etc etc.

    It is fairly clear that Russia should no cooperate and contribute to a system that will ultimately work against Russia and it also should take steps now to counter the system as it takes shape.

    That includes withdrawing from the INF treaty, developing long range models of Iskander for domestic use, and developing an even longer ranged replacement and basing them in Kaliningrad when ABM missiles are installed as a counter.

    Austin

    Posts : 6373
    Points : 6773
    Join date : 2010-05-08
    Location : India

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

    Post  Austin on Sun Jun 12, 2011 5:57 am


    Sponsored content

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

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:14 pm