Poland is going DOWN

[sammyunltd]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: sammyunltd

Originally posted by: waggy
heh i think sammyunltd got pretty owned in this thread.

Not at all, man.

Seriously, looking at the USA's past three big wars, Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, its power is widely overstated. Not only are the other countries (China and Russia and others) catching the US in terms of technology (see China's newest fighters and submarines) but they greatly outnumber the USA (provided Putin imposes conscription, and that may work over there...). Furthermore, Europe is pretty small whereas China and Russia are two of the biggest countries and so far, every power that has tried to take down Russia couldn't (France - Napoleon and Nazis - Hitler) manage it.

The USA proved to the world that their logistic is flawed, by the number of casualties, by their difficulty to crush the resistance in Iraq and Afghanistan, by their costly technology failing to "produce" (ie. many $2B B-2 crashing, etc.). Their soldiers are badly trained (widely known, they take any "volunteer" and not the best of the best) and the infantry is not well equipped (M16 sucks).

As for the Arab States, they might as well join Russia and kick out the "infidels" from their holy soil (i.e. USA's bases in Saudi Arabia). So, they can cut off the USA and Europe's supplies in oil (easy to do, stop sending cargos to their ports..., as easy as that). So, Russia can still have some and China as well.

Furthermore, China, to help Russia and also gain from a weakened West, will sell its US Gov't Bonds to crush the US currency for good. Oil shortages will cause its price to dramatically increase... and on and on.

It is possible..

What China submarine can even hold a candle to the Virginia or Seawolf class, let alone a modern 688? none.

What Chinese or Russian aircraft can hold a candle to an F-22 flight? none. Sure, they have pretty demonstrations in Russia, but no ability to actually afford to equip their military.

Casualties? We've had less than 2% casualties in Iraq. Big fucking deal. What was the number of casualties Russia sustained in Afghanistan? Urban warfare with a disaggregated army has never been easy, history has proven that.

Many B-2's crashing? One has crashed, where are the rest?

Poorly trained? we have the best trained military in the world. Only the best units from Israel, GB, or Germany, could match the upper level (not best) units in the US. Volunteer armies not being better?

What the fuck are you smoking? Professional volunteer armies have shown to be the best armies in the world throughout history. Conscript armies are nothing more than meatshield armies and have been proven as such. They depend on officers too much and give too little weight to the professional non-com structure. Sounds like you're an idiot reading websites with little appreciation for history.

The ME wouldn't dare kick us out. As far as selling the bonds. Great, sell them. We'll buy them back for pennies on the dollar and retire them. meanwhile, those foreign governments will lose trillions. It'll make our goods immensely cheap and unburden the US economy from interest payments. Oil may be a problem, but it's a smaller one than anything else, considering we can innovate around it pretty quickly.

Now you fail at economics.

It's funny that you think you know so much, but really, know so little.

Huh?

t is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems as major partners.

BAE Systems, last I checked, is British, not American. Therefore, the F-35 is not 100% American.

Second, YOU fail at Economics, not me.

Read this and you'll understand.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/mon...08/07/bcnchina107a.xml

As far as affording "to equip their military", well, I got news for you, the USA are living way beyond their means, if we look at the current deficits/current national (and we don't even look at the private debt, OUCH). The USA is borrowing money to pay the numerous military programs (over $500B, right?).

I'd rather take that money and spend it on repaving roads, rebuilding/repairing crumbling infrastructures, set up public transportation systems (Metro, Light Rail), high-speed train, promoting cleaner energy (f*ck coal), imposing more restrictions of car makers, helping American car-makers get out of their mess, setting up Universal Health Care and start subsidizing University (this is sarcastic, by the way).

 

[Deeko]

wow. you are really stretching now. The primary contractor for the F-35 is Lockheed Martin, an American compnany, and it is primarily being funded by the United States. Yes there have been other contributers, but it is still a US aircraft that is not going to any of our enemies. So great. We have the best fighter on the planet, and the majority of the second best. How are you trying to say we have competition when it comes to air superiority? Why are you even bothering with that argument?

 

[JTsyo]

It's all Russia's own fault. If they had a reasonable foreign policy after WW2 most of the eastern European forces would have been favorable to them. Though Poland might still be bitter about the Russian invasion. As it is now, Russia doesn't have very many friends. The Eastern bloc was held together my force not friendship.
I wonder what the US would say if Russia wanted to place ABMs in Cuba though?

 

[Genx87]

I doubt we would care. Are we planning on nuking Gitmo?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: JTsyo
It's all Russia's own fault. If they had a reasonable foreign policy after WW2 most of the eastern European forces would have been favorable to them. Though Poland might still be bitter about the Russian invasion. As it is now, Russia doesn't have very many friends. The Eastern bloc was held together my force not friendship.
I wonder what the US would say if Russia wanted to place ABMs in Cuba though?

We probably wouldn't care. About the only purpose they would serve would be to protect against a limited US nuke strike on South America.

 

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
You forgot to mention casualties in Vietnam

No he didn't. That was not a volunteer army, so if nothing else, it just helps prove his point that an army of conscripts is not as effective.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: sammyunltd

t is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems as major partners.

BAE Systems, last I checked, is British, not American. Therefore, the F-35 is not 100% American.

Second, YOU fail at Economics, not me.

Read this and you'll understand.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/mon...08/07/bcnchina107a.xml

As far as affording "to equip their military", well, I got news for you, the USA are living way beyond their means, if we look at the current deficits/current national (and we don't even look at the private debt, OUCH). The USA is borrowing money to pay the numerous military programs (over $500B, right?).

I'd rather take that money and spend it on repaving roads, rebuilding/repairing crumbling infrastructures, set up public transportation systems (Metro, Light Rail), high-speed train, promoting cleaner energy (f*ck coal), imposing more restrictions of car makers, helping American car-makers get out of their mess, setting up Universal Health Care and start subsidizing University (this is sarcastic, by the way).

ROFL, so BAE *helps* design the F-35, while Lockheed/NG is the one who built the structure, airframe, Americans built the engines. But hey...

The pilot flies the aircraft by means of a right-hand side-stick and left-hand throttle, both of which are supplied by BAE Systems

BAE made the stick and throttle. WOW!

NG made the radar. GE made the gun.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and performs aircraft final assembly, overall system integration, mission system, and provides forward fuselage, wings and flight controls system. Northrop Grumman provides Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, center fuselage, weapons bay, and arrestor gear. BAE Systems provides aft fuselage and empennages, horizontal and vertical tails, crew life support and escape systems, Electronic warfare systems, fuel system, and Flight Control Software (FCS1). Alenia will perform final assembly for Italy and, according to an Alenia executive, assembly of all European aircraft with the exception of the UK's.[84]

GE had a 60% share of the powerplant creation with RR.

You utterly fucking fail there.

Economics?

China needs us more than we need them. We can buy cheap shit anywhere. Fine, dump the currency, devalue your debt to nothing, let us buy it and retire it for pennies on the dollar. Within 5 years we'll be 5x better off and, since they initiated a trade war and they have nobody else to buy their shit, we reciprocate and destroy their economy.

Net net, china loses in any trade war. There isn't another economy that can buy their shit at the same volume.

You just don't get it, when it comes down to the US, the world has no option but to support it. Otherwise, the world is sunk. The whole idea of the US "delinking" from the world economy was just proven to be bullshit in the last 6 months.

Chinese sabre rattling doesn't scare me. If we wanted to give them a kick in the nuts that they couldn't ever recover from we'd just use reciprocal trading policies. That'd shut their country down pretty fucking quickly. Look at what a mild downturn has done to them right now.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Q: Why does the US feel it needs to put a missile defense system in Poland anyway? Unless it wants to sit and provoke Russia and the East?

According to Bush and his friends it's to protect Poland against Iran. Seriously that was the excuse used by Rice when she was asked as to why we needed to put this system only a few hundred miles from Russia's front door step in Poland.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7571660.stm

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travelled to Warsaw for the ceremony, after 18 months of negotiations.

The deal has angered Russia, which has warned the base could become a target for a nuclear strike.

Washington says the system will protect the US and much of Europe against missile attacks from "rogue elements" in the Middle East such as Iran.

Of course the Russians aren't buying this piece of bullshit excuse. In fact the excuse is worse then stating the truth and it shows Russia that we are full of shit and cannot be trusted since this administration will not deal with them on honest and open terms. This administration is hell bent on making Russia into our enemy it seems for no real good reason we are going to do so if the status quo continues.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Q: Why does the US feel it needs to put a missile defense system in Poland anyway? Unless it wants to sit and provoke Russia and the East?

According to Bush and his friends it's to protect Poland against Iran and North Korea. Seriously that was the excuse used by Rice when she was asked as to why we needed to put this system only a few hundred miles from Russia's front door. Of course the Russians aren't buying this piece of bullshit. In fact the excuse is worse then stating the truth and it shows Russia that we are full of shit and cannot be trusted.

The ABM system to be installed in Poland is of very low utility for defense against a signifigant nuclear attack from Russia against Western Europe. The ABM system to be installed in Poland is almost TOTALLY useless for defense against a launch on the CONUS because its so far out of position to intercept those missiles.

Personally if I was Russia I'd be more miffed at the Patriot PAC 3 battalion we are going to be giving Poland in return for the basing which can effectively take out their short/medium range missiles and give their air force one hell of a headache should a conflict erupt.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Q: Why does the US feel it needs to put a missile defense system in Poland anyway? Unless it wants to sit and provoke Russia and the East?

According to Bush and his friends it's to protect Poland against Iran and North Korea. Seriously that was the excuse used by Rice when she was asked as to why we needed to put this system only a few hundred miles from Russia's front door. Of course the Russians aren't buying this piece of bullshit. In fact the excuse is worse then stating the truth and it shows Russia that we are full of shit and cannot be trusted.

The ABM system to be installed in Poland is of very low utility for defense against a signifigant nuclear attack from Russia against Western Europe. The ABM system to be installed in Poland is nearly TOTALLY useless for defense against a launch on the CONUS because its so far out of position to intercept those missiles.

Personally if I was Russia I'd be more miffed at the Patriot PAC 3 battalion we are going to be giving Poland in return for the basing which can effectively take out their short/medium range missiles and give their air force one hell of a headache should a conflict erupt.

I understand but the excuse given to Russia by Rice is bordering on insulting. Proclaiming that that Poland needs to be protected from Iran is a joke and a slap in the face to Russia and it's concerns in this area. It pretty much states that this administration does not care to talk to Russia about the issue and reach some sort of compromise. This administration would instead head forward with it's plans like a bull in a china shop.

 

[theeedude]

Russia will probably withdraw from intermediate range missile ban so that it can build more cheaper nuclear missiles to target European NATO countries.
Probably jack up the price of gas and get those same countries to pay for it too

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Q: Why does the US feel it needs to put a missile defense system in Poland anyway? Unless it wants to sit and provoke Russia and the East?

According to Bush and his friends it's to protect Poland against Iran and North Korea. Seriously that was the excuse used by Rice when she was asked as to why we needed to put this system only a few hundred miles from Russia's front door. Of course the Russians aren't buying this piece of bullshit. In fact the excuse is worse then stating the truth and it shows Russia that we are full of shit and cannot be trusted.

The ABM system to be installed in Poland is of very low utility for defense against a signifigant nuclear attack from Russia against Western Europe. The ABM system to be installed in Poland is nearly TOTALLY useless for defense against a launch on the CONUS because its so far out of position to intercept those missiles.

Personally if I was Russia I'd be more miffed at the Patriot PAC 3 battalion we are going to be giving Poland in return for the basing which can effectively take out their short/medium range missiles and give their air force one hell of a headache should a conflict erupt.

I understand but the excuse given to Russia by Rice is bordering on insulting. Proclaiming that that Poland needs to be protected from Iran is a joke and a slap in the face to Russia and it's concerns in this area. It pretty much states that this administration does not care to talk to Russia about the issue and reach some sort of compromise. This administration would instead head forward with it's plans like a bull in a china shop.

It isn't that far out of line, as a NATO country Poland would certainly be protected by the system as will the rest of Europe. A launch out of Iran would be the primary concern for such a system.

I wouldn't consider a ABM program that is responsible for the defense of Europe/NATO under Russian control/basing to be a viable solution.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia will probably withdraw from intermediate range missile ban so that it can build more cheaper nuclear missiles to target European NATO countries.
Probably jack up the price of gas and get those same countries to pay for it too

Big deal. They won't launch a first strike on NATO even with medium range missiles as MAD still applies.

They are welcome to waste their cash on this.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Q: Why does the US feel it needs to put a missile defense system in Poland anyway? Unless it wants to sit and provoke Russia and the East?

According to Bush and his friends it's to protect Poland against Iran and North Korea. Seriously that was the excuse used by Rice when she was asked as to why we needed to put this system only a few hundred miles from Russia's front door. Of course the Russians aren't buying this piece of bullshit. In fact the excuse is worse then stating the truth and it shows Russia that we are full of shit and cannot be trusted.

The ABM system to be installed in Poland is of very low utility for defense against a signifigant nuclear attack from Russia against Western Europe. The ABM system to be installed in Poland is nearly TOTALLY useless for defense against a launch on the CONUS because its so far out of position to intercept those missiles.

Personally if I was Russia I'd be more miffed at the Patriot PAC 3 battalion we are going to be giving Poland in return for the basing which can effectively take out their short/medium range missiles and give their air force one hell of a headache should a conflict erupt.

I understand but the excuse given to Russia by Rice is bordering on insulting. Proclaiming that that Poland needs to be protected from Iran is a joke and a slap in the face to Russia and it's concerns in this area. It pretty much states that this administration does not care to talk to Russia about the issue and reach some sort of compromise. This administration would instead head forward with it's plans like a bull in a china shop.

It isn't that far out of line, as a NATO country Poland would certainly be protected by the system as will the rest of Europe. A launch out of Iran would be the primary concern for such a system.

I wouldn't consider a ABM program that is responsible for the defense of Europe/NATO under Russian control/basing to be a viable solution.

A launch out of Iran is highly unlikely anytime in the future. Iran doesn't have missiles or the tech that could hope to reach Poland or any European nations so it's not a valid excuse to hand off to the Russians.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Q: Why does the US feel it needs to put a missile defense system in Poland anyway? Unless it wants to sit and provoke Russia and the East?

According to Bush and his friends it's to protect Poland against Iran and North Korea. Seriously that was the excuse used by Rice when she was asked as to why we needed to put this system only a few hundred miles from Russia's front door. Of course the Russians aren't buying this piece of bullshit. In fact the excuse is worse then stating the truth and it shows Russia that we are full of shit and cannot be trusted.

The ABM system to be installed in Poland is of very low utility for defense against a signifigant nuclear attack from Russia against Western Europe. The ABM system to be installed in Poland is nearly TOTALLY useless for defense against a launch on the CONUS because its so far out of position to intercept those missiles.

Personally if I was Russia I'd be more miffed at the Patriot PAC 3 battalion we are going to be giving Poland in return for the basing which can effectively take out their short/medium range missiles and give their air force one hell of a headache should a conflict erupt.

I understand but the excuse given to Russia by Rice is bordering on insulting. Proclaiming that that Poland needs to be protected from Iran is a joke and a slap in the face to Russia and it's concerns in this area. It pretty much states that this administration does not care to talk to Russia about the issue and reach some sort of compromise. This administration would instead head forward with it's plans like a bull in a china shop.

It isn't that far out of line, as a NATO country Poland would certainly be protected by the system as will the rest of Europe. A launch out of Iran would be the primary concern for such a system.

I wouldn't consider a ABM program that is responsible for the defense of Europe/NATO under Russian control/basing to be a viable solution.

A launch out of Iran is highly unlikely anytime in the future. Iran doesn't have missiles or the tech that could hope to reach Poland or any European nations so it's not a valid excuse to hand off to the Russians.

The Iranians have had some decent success with intermediate range ballistic missiles are working on more advanced multistage rockets. It will be a couple years probably before they have something but that's about when the ABM base would be online.

 

[Modelworks]

Well the papers are signed and I don't see any Russian missiles over Poland.
I think the whole thing was a bluff.

You better be nice to me or my dad will beat you up !

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia will probably withdraw from intermediate range missile ban so that it can build more cheaper nuclear missiles to target European NATO countries.
Probably jack up the price of gas and get those same countries to pay for it too

Big deal. They won't launch a first strike on NATO even with medium range missiles as MAD still applies.

They are welcome to waste their cash on this.

Actually, you are missing the point, Russians want to make sure MAD still applies, even with missile defense. It is about deterring potential NATO aggression with nuclear deterrent.
So assuming some effectiveness of missile defense, it comes down to number of Russian rockets vs number of NATO interceptors. It is a lot cheaper to build medium range missiles than to build ICBMs to which they are limited by intermediate range missile ban.
So Russia would be saving a lot of money, not wasting it.
Plus they can base these missiles in Kaliningrad, right next to Poland and in the middle of Eastern Europe, so they only need a few hundred mile range.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia will probably withdraw from intermediate range missile ban so that it can build more cheaper nuclear missiles to target European NATO countries.
Probably jack up the price of gas and get those same countries to pay for it too

Big deal. They won't launch a first strike on NATO even with medium range missiles as MAD still applies.

They are welcome to waste their cash on this.

Actually, you are missing the point, Russians want to make sure MAD still applies, even with missile defense. It is about deterring potential NATO aggression with nuclear deterrent.
So assuming some effectiveness of missile defense, it comes down to number of Russian rockets vs number of NATO interceptors. It is a lot cheaper to build medium range missiles than to build ICBMs to which they are limited by intermediate range missile ban.
So Russia would be saving a lot of money, not wasting it.
Plus they can base these missiles in Kaliningrad, right next to Poland and in the middle of Eastern Europe, so they only need a few hundred mile range.

Much more proven effective defenses exist against IRBMs. Arrow II, THAAD, Patriot PAC 3, SM IIs, etc.. so I don't think they'll go down that path. The 10 interceptors in Poland don't effect the strategic balance anyway.

Russia will probably just shift to using a few more MIRVed mobile ICBMs like they already have.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia will probably withdraw from intermediate range missile ban so that it can build more cheaper nuclear missiles to target European NATO countries.
Probably jack up the price of gas and get those same countries to pay for it too

Big deal. They won't launch a first strike on NATO even with medium range missiles as MAD still applies.

They are welcome to waste their cash on this.

Actually, you are missing the point, Russians want to make sure MAD still applies, even with missile defense. It is about deterring potential NATO aggression with nuclear deterrent.
So assuming some effectiveness of missile defense, it comes down to number of Russian rockets vs number of NATO interceptors. It is a lot cheaper to build medium range missiles than to build ICBMs to which they are limited by intermediate range missile ban.
So Russia would be saving a lot of money, not wasting it.
Plus they can base these missiles in Kaliningrad, right next to Poland and in the middle of Eastern Europe, so they only need a few hundred mile range.

Much more proven effective defenses exist against IRBMs. Arrow II, THAAD, Patriot PAC 3, SM IIs, etc.. so I don't think they'll go down that path. The 10 interceptors in Poland don't effect the strategic balance anyway.

Russia will probably just shift to using a few more MIRVed mobile ICBMs like they already have.

They are proven "effective" against ancient Scuds that Iraq had.
If you believe it's going to stop at 10 interceptors, you probably also believe that this is aimed at Iran

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia will probably withdraw from intermediate range missile ban so that it can build more cheaper nuclear missiles to target European NATO countries.
Probably jack up the price of gas and get those same countries to pay for it too

Big deal. They won't launch a first strike on NATO even with medium range missiles as MAD still applies.

They are welcome to waste their cash on this.

Actually, you are missing the point, Russians want to make sure MAD still applies, even with missile defense. It is about deterring potential NATO aggression with nuclear deterrent.
So assuming some effectiveness of missile defense, it comes down to number of Russian rockets vs number of NATO interceptors. It is a lot cheaper to build medium range missiles than to build ICBMs to which they are limited by intermediate range missile ban.
So Russia would be saving a lot of money, not wasting it.
Plus they can base these missiles in Kaliningrad, right next to Poland and in the middle of Eastern Europe, so they only need a few hundred mile range.

Much more proven effective defenses exist against IRBMs. Arrow II, THAAD, Patriot PAC 3, SM IIs, etc.. so I don't think they'll go down that path. The 10 interceptors in Poland don't effect the strategic balance anyway.

Russia will probably just shift to using a few more MIRVed mobile ICBMs like they already have.

They are proven "effective" against ancient Scuds that Iraq had.
If you believe it's going to stop at 10 interceptors, you probably also believe that this is aimed at Iran

I'd lay my bets on them rather than old soviet trash.

 

[dawheat]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: senseamp
Russia will probably withdraw from intermediate range missile ban so that it can build more cheaper nuclear missiles to target European NATO countries.
Probably jack up the price of gas and get those same countries to pay for it too

Big deal. They won't launch a first strike on NATO even with medium range missiles as MAD still applies.

They are welcome to waste their cash on this.

Actually, you are missing the point, Russians want to make sure MAD still applies, even with missile defense. It is about deterring potential NATO aggression with nuclear deterrent.
So assuming some effectiveness of missile defense, it comes down to number of Russian rockets vs number of NATO interceptors. It is a lot cheaper to build medium range missiles than to build ICBMs to which they are limited by intermediate range missile ban.
So Russia would be saving a lot of money, not wasting it.
Plus they can base these missiles in Kaliningrad, right next to Poland and in the middle of Eastern Europe, so they only need a few hundred mile range.

Much more proven effective defenses exist against IRBMs. Arrow II, THAAD, Patriot PAC 3, SM IIs, etc.. so I don't think they'll go down that path. The 10 interceptors in Poland don't effect the strategic balance anyway.

Russia will probably just shift to using a few more MIRVed mobile ICBMs like they already have.

They are proven "effective" against ancient Scuds that Iraq had.
If you believe it's going to stop at 10 interceptors, you probably also believe that this is aimed at Iran

1. The Patriot PAC-3 and SM-3/Aegis systems haven been proven to be reasonably effective against SRBMs and MRBMs.

2. Russia has the best ABM systems today around Moscow with the A-135 system. This does not change the doctrine of MAD.

3. MIRVs make ABM systems pointless in a widescale nuclear conflict.

4. Russia has over 17,000 nuclear warheads of which, about 7,200 are believed to be deployed. They are delivered via silo and mobile ICBMs, submarines, bombers, and other theater level systems. 500 interceptors would not change MAD.

The truth is the 10 ABMs in Poland pose 0 threat to Russia and as a NATO country, Poland was likely already targeted by Russia if nuclear war broke out. 100 or 500 doesn't change the equation either.

This is just a pissing content between Russian and the US. Russia knows a conventional war vs. NATO would mean the destruction of any armed forces it commits. They have nothing to fear regarding invasion since it would be an insurmountable challenge to hold that much territory, but their military influence would drop to nil.

Since they can't cower a NATO country with a conventional threat, their hope is to wave the nuclear stick and hope it scares NATO enough to cave.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: dawheat
4. Russia has over 17,000 nuclear warheads of which, about 7,200 are believed to be deployed. They are delivered via silo and mobile ICBMs, submarines, bombers, and other theater level systems. 500 interceptors would not change MAD.

I'd pay to have 100,000 interceptors. Or are you telling me the interceptor is more expensive than a nuclear warhead? The only question of its effectiveness is how much we are willing to invest in it.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: dawheat
4. Russia has over 17,000 nuclear warheads of which, about 7,200 are believed to be deployed. They are delivered via silo and mobile ICBMs, submarines, bombers, and other theater level systems. 500 interceptors would not change MAD.

I'd pay to have 100,000 interceptors. Or are you telling me the interceptor is more expensive than a nuclear warhead? The only question of its effectiveness is how much we are willing to invest in it.

You need to have several interceptors per warhead to ensure sufficiently high effectiveness. Also, Russians can launch dummy warheads alongside real ones in a MIRV setup, and we'd have to treat those as real or accept the risk that they are.

 

[dawheat]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: dawheat
4. Russia has over 17,000 nuclear warheads of which, about 7,200 are believed to be deployed. They are delivered via silo and mobile ICBMs, submarines, bombers, and other theater level systems. 500 interceptors would not change MAD.

I'd pay to have 100,000 interceptors. Or are you telling me the interceptor is more expensive than a nuclear warhead? The only question of its effectiveness is how much we are willing to invest in it.

My point is that Russia stating that the 10 interceptors destabilizes MAD is a load of crap. The only benefit a progam even 10 times this size would be against a regional threat (e.g. Iran), imaginary or not.

I disagree that we want to build 100,000 interceptors. As crazy as it is, MAD is a very very strong deterrent against nuclear war. Until the day no one has nuclear weapons, nuclear war has to remain an impossible option. If it ever becomes potentially winnable, then it becomes a viable option to use.

Both sides having 7,500 nuclear warheads and 7,500 interceptors IMO is far more dangerous that both sides having 7,500 warheads and 100 interceptors.

 

[TroyEade]

Originally posted by: jjones
This is not even bluster. It's just pointing out the obvious that Poland will now be on a list of first strike targets for Russia. BFD.

Won't be the first time that Russia attacked Poland.