Russia to target missile defense sites in Europe

[Nintendesert]

There was talk of the US defunding and removing the missile defenses from Europe due to the costs, this is in response to it. The Russians are going to try and force us to keep funding that program and drive us further into monetary problems. Just like we did to them in the 1980's.

 

[gevorg]

Too many casual observers fail to realize that there is much more in "missile shield" than a possibility of shooting down a few missiles or so. These proposed radars and "early warning" systems would give Europe/NATO a massive spy network and surveillance over Russian airspace and beyond. Anything that flys into the air, any telecommunication, would all be at the hand's reach, and much better than it is now. Hence why Russia is not allowed to participate in the missile defense shield with full disclosure of all monitoring. Russia has a full right to be concerned, I just hope their reaction to this would stay within tit-for-tat and not turn into another arms race or Cold War II.

 

[Karl Agathon]

The U.S. needs to produce more SSBN subs, not cut back.

 

[Zebo]

That elephant in the room never went away. People worry about global warming when nuclear annihilation has always been the far greater threat to humanity and getting worse with proliferation.

 

[cybrsage]

That elephant in the room never went away. People worry about global warming when nuclear annihilation has always been the far greater threat to humanity and getting worse with proliferation.

Especially considering nuclear annihilation is the only one of the two mankind actually has control over.

 

[irishScott]

Yep, because the Russian invasion of Europe is just around the corner.

 

[cybrsage]

Yep, because the Russian invasion of Europe is just around the corner.

Which makes me wonder why they are bitching about something that will only affect them if they invade Europe.

It is like complaining that your neighbor put a security system in their house and you are going to create plans to break into their house until they take it out.

Very silly.

The US flipped Russia the bird and is moving forward.

 

[irishScott]

Which makes me wonder why they are bitching about something that will only affect them if they invade Europe.

It is like complaining that your neighbor put a security system in their house and you are going to create plans to break into their house until they take it out.

Very silly.

The US flipped Russia the bird and is moving forward.

As we should. It's Russia. They still haven't quite gotten over the fact that the world no longer trembles when they speak.

 

[cybrsage]

The U.S. needs to produce more SSBN subs, not cut back.

Why? Serious question. I was in the submarine service, so I am not against subs at all. They are the best naval weapon for preventing control of the oceans to an enemy force.

I think we should continue to create newer, better subs, but we do not need physically more ballistic subs...we have too many of them already. We have 14 Ohios (SSBN versions). Since only half are on patrol at any time, that makes 7 on patrol. Each one carries 24 ICMBs with a range of 4,573 miles minimum. Each missile carries 8 warheads of 100KT each...for a total of 188 warheads a submarine.

Basically, each submarine individually has the power to wipe out any nation on the planet with the exception of Russia and China. If we have only 3 on patrol, we can easily wipe out those two as well.

The cost of the subs outweighs the benefits of having so many. We can cut the fleet in half and still have more than we need. Especially considering their only purpose is to prevent another major power from invading the US. They ONLY work on major powers...minor powers do not care about them, and we would never use nukes on a minor power since our conventional forces are overkill for them.


EDIT: We need lots of fast attack subs...they are very useful, but boomers not so much.

 

[cybrsage]

As we should. It's Russia. They still haven't quite gotten over the fact that the world no longer trembles when they speak.

Nah, they have too much to lose. We still sell them food, so there is no worry about starving. Start a war and the food sales end.

They also have lots of natural resources which they can sell for good profits...but attack Europe and we stop buying them.

What is their gain for attacking Europe vs their lose if they do? That is the equation.

 

[irishScott]

Nah, they have too much to lose. We still sell them food, so there is no worry about starving. Start a war and the food sales end.

They also have lots of natural resources which they can sell for good profits...but attack Europe and we stop buying them.

What is their gain for attacking Europe vs their lose if they do? That is the equation.

Screw that, they'd have NATO to deal with. The nuclear deterrent still stands, we could wipe Russia off the planet if we wanted to, and our military has come a long way since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Russian military meanwhile has stagnated and atrophied in many ways. Invading any part of Europe would be quite negative for them.

 

[cybrsage]

Screw that, they'd have NATO to deal with. The nuclear deterrent still stands, we could wipe Russia off the planet if we wanted to, and our military has come a long way since the fall of the Soviet Union. The Russian military meanwhile has stagnated and atrophied in many ways. Invading any part of Europe would be quite negative for them.

Yeah, but they do have a LOT of weapons still...

But that is all part of the equation. There is SOOO much to lose and nothing to gain if they were to invade Europe.

 

[K1052]

Yeah, but they do have a LOT of weapons still...

But that is all part of the equation. There is SOOO much to lose and nothing to gain if they were to invade Europe.

Russia now is a shadow of it's old self. They'd get pasted by NATO in a conventional fight. Not to mention all the eastern european countries who have less than zero interest in coming under Russian control again would fight them tooth and nail for every yard.

Considering the problems Russia had squashing tiny Georgia, particularly not being able to establish air superiority against old Soviet SAMs, I think their military competence is somewhat overrated.

 

[freegeeks]

there are hundreds of UK and French nukes waiting for them...

 

[Karl Agathon]

there are hundreds of UK and French nukes waiting for them...

Good! As many nukes should be pointed at the Russian bear and Red Dragon as possible for deterence sake.

 

[Brovane]

Why? Serious question. I was in the submarine service, so I am not against subs at all. They are the best naval weapon for preventing control of the oceans to an enemy force.

I think we should continue to create newer, better subs, but we do not need physically more ballistic subs...we have too many of them already. We have 14 Ohios (SSBN versions). Since only half are on patrol at any time, that makes 7 on patrol. Each one carries 24 ICMBs with a range of 4,573 miles minimum. Each missile carries 8 warheads of 100KT each...for a total of 188 warheads a submarine.

Basically, each submarine individually has the power to wipe out any nation on the planet with the exception of Russia and China. If we have only 3 on patrol, we can easily wipe out those two as well.

The cost of the subs outweighs the benefits of having so many. We can cut the fleet in half and still have more than we need. Especially considering their only purpose is to prevent another major power from invading the US. They ONLY work on major powers...minor powers do not care about them, and we would never use nukes on a minor power since our conventional forces are overkill for them.


EDIT: We need lots of fast attack subs...they are very useful, but boomers not so much.

There has been some discussion about eliminating land-based ICBM's for the US and just using SLBM for detterence.

 

[Brovane]

True, a missile defense system will not stop hundreds of warheads. What it will do is stop a significantly weakened Russian retaliatory attack in the event of a first strike by the US. The reason the Russians are worried is because this missile defense system will give the US impunity to conduct a first strike.

I thought that was the point? If the Russians are so concerned they can develop their own missile defense system. That would be a good thing to eventually make all the ICBM's on hair trigger alert obsolete.

 

[Brovane]

Why should the Russians worry about a system that has only marginally worked in "setup" tests? I work in the field by the way. I hate taxpayers money being wasted.

You work in the field of Missile Defense?

 

[hal2kilo]

You work in the field of Missile Defense?

I'm not directly involved in that project but at one point, our department had people involved in some aspects of the intrumentation, specifically GPS referencing/translation.

I'm supporting instrumentation of a existing deployed system on an ongoing long term basis.

I really don't want to get not anything more specific.

 

[Brovane]

I'm not directly involved in that project but at one point, our department had people involved in some aspects of the intrumentation, specifically GPS referencing/translation.

I'm supporting instrumentation of a existing deployed system on an ongoing long term basis.

I really don't want to get not anything more specific.

Thanks for the information. So when you are saying that the system only marginally works are you refering to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system?

 

[ForumMaster]

obligatory

 

[hal2kilo]

Thanks for the information. So when you are saying that the system only marginally works are you refering to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system?

Roger.

 

[Brovane]

Roger.

Thanks. It does seem like the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system system has had many challenges during its development phase. However it seems like the other ABM systems like THAAD, Aegis BMD and the Patriot PAC-3 system seem to be having more success. Do you have any opinions on those BMD systems?

 

[hal2kilo]

Thanks. It does seem like the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system system has had many challenges during its development phase. However it seems like the other ABM systems like THAAD, Aegis BMD and the Patriot PAC-3 system seem to be having more success. Do you have any opinions on those BMD systems?

Not really on the THAAD or Patriot PAC-3. The Navy got alot of publicity, and pulled off a neat trick shooting down the failing Chineese satillite with the Aegis. Still, not a real world scenario.

I think just telling a country that if you use a nuke against us or one of our allies means you will no longer exist if a far more effective and existing technology/concept i.e. MAD.

 

[Brovane]

Not really on the THAAD or Patriot PAC-3. The Navy got alot of publicity, and pulled off a neat trick shooting down the failing Chineese satillite with the Aegis. Still, not a real world scenario.

I think just telling a country that if you use a nuke against us or one of our allies means you will no longer exist if a far more effective and existing technology/concept i.e. MAD.

Assuming the inbound Ballistic missile has a nuke attached to it. It could be a coventional warhead. The Israeli's seem to be enjoying succcess with the "Iron Dome" system to incrcept short range rockets. The Indian's seem to be working on a balistic missile defense system. The Russians have had a working ABM system around Moscow for several decades now. The Japan Defense force seems to be looking at buying the Aegis system. Smart move considering that North Korea isn't that far away. The way I figure with ABM systems is that I would rather have it and not need than need it and not have it. I think part of the problem also is that people lump all ABM's system together and consider them as one. The Patriot system has a different intercept envelop than the THAAD system for example. I would rather see ABM's developed to the point where ICBM's are essentially obsolete.

Having a working ABM system gives a country options short of responding with a nuclear weapon. For example if North Korea launches a nuclear missile at Japan. If we don't have ABM we don't have really any option except responding with nuclear strike to let the rest of the world know that we stand behind or allies. However if that missile is intercepted, then we have more options short of a nuclear strike to respond. Japan, US and South Korea can take a more measured tone. Something short of giving North Korea a terminal does of instant sunshine, which would cause a mess for South Korea from fall-out.