Russia to target missile defense sites in Europe

[cybrsage]

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

AH...then that would be a great reason to increase the number of boomer subs.

 

[cybrsage]

This is also why the US is developing hyper speed missiles.

 

[Karl Agathon]

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

I certainly hope that doesnt happen! im all for decreasing the amount of land-based ICBM's, but not for total elimination. I think we need to maintain a credible land deterence. Escpecially now with an ever increasing belligerent Red China licking her chops and arming herself to the the teeth for future war with the United States.

 

[Brovane]

I certainly hope that doesnt happen! im all for decreasing the amount of land-based ICBM's, but not for total elimination. I think we need to maintain a credible land deterence. Escpecially now with an ever increasing belligerent Red China licking her chops and arming herself to the the teeth for future war with the United States.

Even the Soviets at the peak of their power couldn't threaten a US trident missile submarine once it was out on patrol. With the further reduction of ICBM's by moving them to be all sea-based this would give a credible second strike capability and would make anyone pause in seriously considering a first strike against the US. Also this would save money over the long term. However this would eliminate one leg of the US nuclear triad. However this has been floated around especially in light of future US defense cuts.

Realistically China can threaten all they want but they any future war with the US would have to much of a chance of going nuclear, then everyone loses. Actually China is the number one country upset about US ABM activity. China has a limited amount of ICBM's that can reach the US and a ABM shield that would be overwhelmed by a Russian strike could be effective against a Chinese nuclear attack. Also what is interesting is China making noise recently about developing Ballistic missiles to attack ships from thousands of miles away. Well any Ballistic missile inbound a US fleet would fall well within the intercept envelop of the Aegis-BMD system. Surpising how that works out.

 

[notposting]

oh noes!

why wouldn't they be free to deploy missiles anywhere in their territory?

Woot! Detroit baby! Their list of strategic targets could use some updating

 

[thebomb]

Also what is interesting is China making noise recently about developing Ballistic missiles to attack ships from thousands of miles away. Well any Ballistic missile inbound a US fleet would fall well within the intercept envelop of the Aegis-BMD system. Surpising how that works out.

IIRC Aegis won't be able to stop Chinese ship killer missiles. The DF-21 for example, is too fast for Aegis. Carriers are going the way of the battleships.

 

[irishScott]

IIRC Aegis won't be able to stop Chinese ship killer missiles. The DF-21 for example, is too fast for Aegis. Carriers are going the way of the battleships.

No they aren't. That's like saying battleships went obsolete because someone invented a shell that could penetrate their armor. All this means is that someone will create a better interception system to counter said missiles.

 

[thebomb]

No they aren't. That's like saying battleships went obsolete because someone invented a shell that could penetrate their armor. All this means is that someone will create a better interception system to counter said missiles.

How much does it cost to make one DF-21? Or a dozen Iranian speedboats packed with explosives?

How much does it cost to develop, install, test, and implement an interception system on a carrier that operates thousands of miles from port?

 

[irishScott]

How much does it cost to make one DF-21? Or a dozen Iranian speedboats packed with explosives?

How much does it cost to develop, install, test, and implement an interception system on a carrier that operates thousands of miles from port?

Lol, are you Lemon Law's 2nd account? You think a bunch of speedboats with explosives have any chance of taking out a carrier battle group? I suggest you ask the Somalis how they're faring against individual, relatively small military vessels they come across.

And you see, we have these wonderful things called "ports" that the carriers can come back to to upgrade and retrofit, like they've done every so often for the last few decades in some cases. This is not a new concept. We also have two new carriers under construction. They'll have the latest and greatest from the get go.

 

[Brovane]

IIRC Aegis won't be able to stop Chinese ship killer missiles. The DF-21 for example, is too fast for Aegis. Carriers are going the way of the battleships.

To fast for a Aegis BMD firing a SM-3? A SM-3 has a exo-atmospheric kill capability against Ballistic missiles. The DF-21 falls right into the intercept envelop of a Aegis BMD system. The Aegis BMD system was designed to handle these types of threats and has been tested multiple times succesfully against ballistic missiles. A standard Aegis system would have issues. However the Aegis BMD system with the SM-3 missile is more than capable of doing a intercept of this type of threat. Not even mentioning shooting a ballistic missile at a US carrier battlegroup is a real good way to cause a conflict to go nuclear. Not even getting into the targeting issues. Usually Balistic missiles are shoting at targets that don't move, a US carrier group is a moving target and the US has a excellent early warning system for any type of Balistic missile launch.

 

[Brovane]

How much does it cost to make one DF-21? Or a dozen Iranian speedboats packed with explosives?

How much does it cost to develop, install, test, and implement an interception system on a carrier that operates thousands of miles from port?

Actually a Carrier doesn't have a intercept system. It's escort ships have the intercept system. Basically a US carrier battlegroup can control a airspace of around 1000km around it without much issue and is capable of projecting a lot of power. The great things about carriers is that a upgrade can be as simple as getting new planes. The USS Midway was finished right at the end of WW2 and originally flew propellor planes. By the time she left service in the 90's F-18's where flying off her. A Carrier is a incredibly flexible ship. Anyway the intercept system for the DF-21 has already been developed, tested and deployed in the Aegis BMD system.

 

[cybrsage]

The US is the only nation that went the route of the supercarrier. The others went for more, but smaller, carriers. Both sounded like viable paths to take, but the Falkland war showed that more, smaller, carriers were not nearly as effective.

 

[Brovane]

The US is the only nation that went the route of the supercarrier. The others went for more, but smaller, carriers. Both sounded like viable paths to take, but the Falkland war showed that more, smaller, carriers were not nearly as effective.

You also have to consider that the US had a lot ( a lot ) of experience running carrier operations during WW2 and by the end of the war where really getting down to knowing exactly what they wanted in a carrier. Nobody else had as much experience as the US in running Carrier operations after WW2. Out of this evolved the first class of super carriers the Forrestal class. The British flat out didn't have the financial resources to do this and went with smaller carriers similiar to the size of standard WW2 carriers. This presented a issue as modern jet aircraft are much bigger than WW2 aircraft.

However what is interesting is that the British have discovered that smaller carriers doesn't necessarily mean less money. Their are certain inherent costs for a carrier hull and the cost difference between a 40,000 ton carrier hull and a 80,000 carrier hull isn't as much difference as you would think. The biggest costs are propulsion, electronics, aircraft. The next British Carriers the Queen Elizabeth class are going to be around 65,000 tons which is a significant increase in size for the British. Also what is interesting if a country has resources they want to go the super carrier route. Both China and Russia have discussed building large carriers in the future. It is more of a matter of resources for Russia and for the Chinese it is technology challenges and they are trying to leverage what the Russians know which is kind of like the blind leading the blind.

 

[EagleKeeper]

China no longer has a blue water navy.
Until they develop one and then learn how to utilize it;they are a threat only within their home waters.

Because their location is fixed; their anti-ship missiles become very vulnerable.

The same is the problem with the Russian missiles w/ respect to the OP.
A movable missile is dangerous after a first strike. A fixed location is not.

 

[wirednuts]

RUSSIA: were going take aim off your country and aim our missiles at europe.

USA: oh noes dont do that

RUSSIA: fine then. we did it. fuck u

USA: please no dont push the button

 

[Jhhnn]

The whole abm's in europe thing is a leftover "in yo face, biatch!" thing left over from the Neocons & GWB, & we'd do extremely well just to drop it entirely.

It's an impediment to further reduction of nukes, and deployment anywhere bolsters the illusion that nuclear war is "winnable".

the Bush Admin needed foreign "enemies" as distraction for their disastrous domestic policy- also as a classic exercise in Straussian Neocon strategy, in their desire to achieve world hegemony. That flopped, too, so we might as well let it lie where it hit the dirt.

 

[woolfe9999]

The whole abm's in europe thing is a leftover "in yo face, biatch!" thing left over from the Neocons & GWB, & we'd do extremely well just to drop it entirely.

It's an impediment to further reduction of nukes, and deployment anywhere bolsters the illusion that nuclear war is "winnable".

Yeah, ABM's are dangerous. If you can't stop all the nukes, you're best off not having the capability to stop any.

 

[cybrsage]

The purpose of the ABM system is to prevent small nations, such as Iran or Pakistan or India, from launching a nuke. With the system in place, none of their launces will be successful. It is not designed to stop Russia.

Russia will not launch a nuclear war, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. But what about the hyper religious clerics in Iran? What if a super extremist becomes the head cleric and decides Allah wants the European infidels killed and launches a nuke?

What if Pakistan gets tired of "the west" killing AQ and Taliban in their country and decides to take it out on Germany (since they cannot shoot one the entire way to the US)?

 

[JS80]

The missile system is not designed to stop hundreds of warheads...it is designed to stop a few...so it is effective against the minor nations which may launch because they are losers.

Russia sells/wants to sell weapons to nefarious nations. Missile defense makes the value of those worth a lot less.

 

[cybrsage]

Russia sells/wants to sell weapons to nefarious nations. Missile defense makes the value of those worth a lot less.

Or it increases the volume of sales.

They just need better salesmen.

 

[Brovane]

Yeah, ABM's are dangerous. If you can't stop all the nukes, you're best off not having the capability to stop any.

There are different types of ABM technology. There is the short range ABM like the Israeli "iron dome" and patriot system which are intended to stop rockets or lower range Ballistic missiles. Then there are the Arrow systems and Aegis BDM systems which can stop long range ballistic missiles. You then have the Russian S-400, US Mid-course Defense system and THAAD all which have some capability against ICBM's. So are you saying that all types of ABM's are dangerous? Are just ABM's developed to stop ICBM's dangerous?

 

[olds]

Of course they will target European missile defense sites. I am sure they have targeted any site they know about that they think can reach them. That's just how it's done.

When I planned artillery for the US Army, I targeted it all. Hilltops, gas stations, bridges, intersections, known ADA, suspected assembly areas, etc.

You pre-plan it all so if the shtf, you are gtg.

 

[kyrax12]

Hmmm I always thought the U.S military is so powerful that ever country on Earth was scared of the U.S.

Is that changing?

 

[Jhhnn]

The purpose of the ABM system is to prevent small nations, such as Iran or Pakistan or India, from launching a nuke. With the system in place, none of their launces will be successful. It is not designed to stop Russia.

Russia will not launch a nuclear war, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose. But what about the hyper religious clerics in Iran? What if a super extremist becomes the head cleric and decides Allah wants the European infidels killed and launches a nuke?

What if Pakistan gets tired of "the west" killing AQ and Taliban in their country and decides to take it out on Germany (since they cannot shoot one the entire way to the US)?

the purpose of the Bush ABM system in eastern europe is none of the above. If that were the purpose, they'd have accepted Russia's offer to put them in the Caucuses as a joint operation. It's mostly designed as a political ploy for the home crowd, an excuse to extend radar coverage over western Russia, and pork for well connected defense contractors.

And then there's the "Crazy Mullahs!" routine, which runs through right wing prognostications & fearmongering like corruption thru Wall St. Except that they're not crazy at all, and if they were going to nuke anybody, it'd be Israel, not europe. They've just been portrayed as crazy in the media so as to deny them credibility. Not to mention that the Iranian boogeyman served as a great distraction from the top down class warfare being waged with Bush Admin complicity.

 

[cybrsage]

Hmmm I always thought the U.S military is so powerful that ever country on Earth was scared of the U.S.

Is that changing?

Nope, they are scared, which is why they are aiming weapons and crying.