NATO Cruise missile attack threat to Russia

Russia boosts air defense in face of US Prompt Global Strike capacity



http://rt.com/news/246869-global-strike-missile-defense/

The huge irony is that the US is trying to achieve an unobtainable capability... being able to hit a target within one hour of deciding it is a threat either means it is a space based weapon that orbits the earth every 90 minutes with about 36 of these satellites offering the ability to hit anywhere on earth within the hour, or it is going to need to be earth based and more than 72 bases all over the planet because launching from the surface of the earth takes more time and more energy than falling from space...

The sad fact is that when they achieve it they will find that Russia will have developed the same capability and a means to defeat the US model and who knows what the Chinese will have done by then...

In other words escalation where escalation is not needed or wanted.

George1 wrote:US Department of Defense  issued an official comment on the need for a sea-based nuclear cruise missile

https://bmpd.livejournal.com/4105502.html

The US fetishizes the cruise missile. I recall all sorts of books and "analysis" where NATzO was threatened by the 1980 introduction
of Soviet cruise missiles. As with stealth, the yanquis believe that cruise missiles are undetectable and invincible.

Very funny considering the performance of the tomahawk in Syria, a cruise missile attack on Russia would leave Russia largely unharmed and europe a smoldering radioactive crater.

If anything cruise missiles would give Russia an early warning by showing up on OTH radars hours before they near the Russian shores, giving Russia plenty of time to confirm and retaliate.

It's amusing that they believe subsonic cruise missiles to be the end-all-be-all, when the federation has tens of thousands of MANPADS (Igla series and Verba) as well as ATGMs (Kornet-M) with their respective command posts that are highly capable at destroying cruise missiles.

Hole wrote:Even if some would come through the damage would be limited. There were 20 Tommys hitting the syrian air force base and 24 hours later planes were again flying from it. You would need hits from 100 or 200 cruise missiles (conventional ones) to destroy even one russian air base. The probability is close to zero.

Don't forget the nuclear part. That is why it is mentioned. Adding a nuke warhead to a sub-par missile system elevates its
effectiveness. But even with this "fix", the US is still obsessed with cruise missiles. The fascination of an idiot.