bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,030
- 2
- 61
And you're just another neo-conservative who thinks we can do what we want around the world without creating a lot of hatred, resentment, and desire for vengeance toward the US. It's not only a dangerous, expensive, and failed foreign policy, it makes us less safe at home. And the government quickly tramples on our rights trying to prevent attacks from enemies we create overseas.
That's because they whored them out. They're still piles of shit that can be found and sunk easily. How many subs have the Sovs lost in total? How many in the last 20 years? How many have we lost?
Remember the Kursk?
It changes the balance of power. Nukes depend on mutual destruction. If that symmetry is destroyed, then the party which has the better defensive system can be more offensive. They can do so because they know they won't be hurt as badly.
It's all an arms race. Now it's 10-20. In 20 years?
The Russians have a pathalogical fear of being out-manuevered and left undefended. It happened to them twice (not counting Napoleon) and it cost than 20MM lives each time.
not to mention we are f'ing with their home turf.
Czech Republic is NOT their home turf - they occupied this country for more then 20 years...
btw. I live in Czech Republic.
In their eyes it's as much as their home turf as Cuba was ours. It's all about the sphere of influence and the "buffer" states.
In geopolitical terms, LK is right, it's their "home turf" sphere of influence. I don't understand the need for this push at this time when we really don't need additional problems and/or another obstacle to pushing things through the UN. Maybe there's more to this than what is publically available.
Well, then ... Welcome my friend to The United Hegemonic States of America!
Would you like a little Jesus with that?
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 46,031
- 33,011
- 136
Well the Soviets did lose the cold war and the Russians have to be nuts to think the eastern European nations they occupied and oppressed for the better part of half a century would willingly stay in the fold so to speak. That's why every country over there is clamoring for EU and NATO membership.
Unless the Russian military has fallen into such a terrible state of repair that a limited ABM system capable of realistically taking out a few (less than 10) missiles would nullify their nuclear deterrent they have a lot bigger problem on their hands. IMO this is entirely about the erosion of their sphere of influence and their reduced ability to threaten their neighbors into line.
hahahahahaha
so when USA build their radar in CR we will become 51st state? LOL
I agree with everything K1052 said.
What you aren't getting is that the whole Russian nuclear doctrine was focused around forcing us to concede through using land-based first strikes to take out our land-based missiles, submarine bases, and naval bases, limiting civilian casualties. Our being able to prevent this doctrine forces them to reevaluate their stance.
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 46,031
- 33,011
- 136
The Russians still field something like 500 ICBMs with MIRVs and I think about 15% of that is mobile. There is no way the ABM system that is proposed could even come close to countering that so this isn't a major strategy changer and they'll still be free to threaten their close neighbor nations with tactical nuke strikes.
The US/NATO also has far fewer strategic military sites to target due to base realignment and closures since the end of the cold war. Most of the missiles bound for the CONUS would probably go over the pole and be out of reach of the European system anyway.
gevorg
Diamond Member
- Nov 3, 2004
- 5,075
- 1
- 0
I think what concerns Russia is not the possibility that the missile defense will be able to deter their modern nuclear arsenal (it won't, ever heard of Topol-M? best in its class). They're probably concerned about the fact that those radars in the missile defense will easily cover the whole western airspace of Russia for intelligence information (much more effectively than current NATO radars and/or satellites). This is something they have the right to be concerned about. If US/NATO can cooperate with Russia and ensure them that the missle defense system won't be used to spy on them, while Russia will let them use its Gabala radar right in front of Iran, then the missile defense might work quite well.
No. Not only is that hideously unlikely from a technological standpoint, but it is not even a goal of the system. (do you realize how much money it would cost to protect the US from a large scale missile strike? trillions upon trillions)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter