So we're deploying an ineffective missile defense system to Poland...

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Queasy
The missile defense system is not ineffective. Unproven in a live fire situation, yes. But, it has had a string of successes in test situations including multiple targets. It was also used to bring down that satellite a while back.

Ask yourself this, if it was so ineffective....would Russia really be pissed off about it?

Good point.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy
The missile defense system is not ineffective. Unproven in a live fire situation, yes. But, it has had a string of successes in test situations including multiple targets. It was also used to bring down that satellite a while back.

Ask yourself this, if it was so ineffective....would Russia really be pissed off about it?

Good point.

Russia is mad about it because it is a public display of their impotence, an encroachment into their backyard that they have historically influenced, and that the missile defense system is a plausible first strike enabling weapon system.

 

[rudder]

Who gets the international space station in the event of war?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: irishScott
what?

Why do I get the feeling that the Cold War never ended, it just went on hiatus. I can see them getting pissed about the patriot missiles, but they are short range, and I doubt Poland is going to attack Russia anytime soon.

Because the US wasted the opportunity, and instead just supplied some disastrous Milton Friedman followers that did great damage, working with Yeltsin. Now, it's a backlash.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy
The missile defense system is not ineffective. Unproven in a live fire situation, yes. But, it has had a string of successes in test situations including multiple targets. It was also used to bring down that satellite a while back.

Ask yourself this, if it was so ineffective....would Russia really be pissed off about it?

Good point.

Russia is mad about it because it is a public display of their impotence, an encroachment into their backyard that they have historically influenced, and that the missile defense system is a plausible first strike enabling weapon system.

Plausible? More like laughable.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy
The missile defense system is not ineffective. Unproven in a live fire situation, yes. But, it has had a string of successes in test situations including multiple targets. It was also used to bring down that satellite a while back.

Ask yourself this, if it was so ineffective....would Russia really be pissed off about it?

Good point.

Russia is mad about it because it is a public display of their impotence, an encroachment into their backyard that they have historically influenced, and that the missile defense system is a plausible first strike enabling weapon system.

Plausible? More like laughable.

Not really. The idea behind it is to hit your opponent with a first strike aimed at his nuclear forces. If all goes well we wipe out 90%+ of the missiles they have, leaving them with only a handful to retaliate with, in theory we might be able to get our missile defense good enough to take out those remaining missiles. Thus, this makes a first strike more attractive.

Of course this is a horrible and destabilizing idea that's extremely expensive and probably makes us less safe in the long run. I think the missile defense program is hideously stupid for many reasons. I was just pointing out one of the reasons the Russians might not like it.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: RichardE
Poland is gonna start it again.../sigh

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy
The missile defense system is not ineffective. Unproven in a live fire situation, yes. But, it has had a string of successes in test situations including multiple targets. It was also used to bring down that satellite a while back.

Ask yourself this, if it was so ineffective....would Russia really be pissed off about it?

Good point.

Russia is mad about it because it is a public display of their impotence, an encroachment into their backyard that they have historically influenced, and that the missile defense system is a plausible first strike enabling weapon system.

Plausible? More like laughable.

Not really. The idea behind it is to hit your opponent with a first strike aimed at his nuclear forces. If all goes well we wipe out 90%+ of the missiles they have, leaving them with only a handful to retaliate with, in theory we might be able to get our missile defense good enough to take out those remaining missiles. Thus, this makes a first strike more attractive.

Of course this is a horrible and destabilizing idea that's extremely expensive and probably makes us less safe in the long run. I think the missile defense program is hideously stupid for many reasons. I was just pointing out one of the reasons the Russians might not like it.

You do realize not all Russian missiles are fixed in place waiting for a first strike?
There are hundreds of warheads that are submarine launched, and many of the land launched ones are mobile either launched from trucks or hidden in innocent looking freight train containers. Destroying 90%+ of Russian missiles with 1st strike before they launch a retaliatory strike is nothing but a pipe dream.

 

[StageLeft]

It would be sufficiently large enough to overwhelm any system we could put in place. As stated before Russia is just using this as an excuse to blow out some hot air.

I disagree. Though I maintain the system is smoke and mirrors now, once it does get truly good (and I'm sure it will), what do you think is harder? Getting a defense shield up with whatever the missiles cost for it or out-building a fleet of ICBMs? It's not like the warheads from those are cheap. Russia has plenty of what I imagine are fairly aged ICBMs, so even if it designs ones that can negate much of a shield, they'd be few and far between.

I can only assume that Russia is looking beyond a horizon of a few years and down the line a decade or more. If so, it has everything to fear from a defense shield outside its border that starts at < 10 and could assuredly be brought up to way more in comparitively little time.

Russia wants to avoid a precedent. If we say "10 is not a big deal", what if Iran builds 10-15? Then we're like, "Oh, we just want 20. Russia, don't worry, 20 is no problem". Next year it's 30, then it's runaway and quickly outpaced whatever Russia can get in the air.

Russia is not a military powerhouse. It doesn't even have a single functional carrier group, its tech is old, it has vast amounts of land and knows that its nuclear deterrent is a key part of its military. This shield could very well threaten it.

 

[sammyunltd]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Russia is not a military powerhouse.

ROFLMAO. Well, if it isn't, then the USA aren't. They got overwhelmed by the Iraqi and by the Talibans...

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sammyunltd

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Russia is not a military powerhouse.

ROFLMAO. Well, if it isn't, then the USA aren't. They got overwhelmed by the Iraqi and by the Talibans...

I mean, people talk about it like it's trying to rebuild its military and in a few years it will be neck and neck with the US. It's simply untrue. Russia may be growing quickly but it remains a comparitively poor country. Its economy is nothing to write home about and it's not a very populated nation, even (120-140M?).

 

[theeedude]

Russia is getting its enemies to pay for its weapons. We are mortgaging our country. The biggest target of this missile defense system are the pockets of US taxpayers, which will eventually be drained of hundreds of billions to pay for it.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I thought the system was designed to protect EU from Iran. I wonder why the US, and not EU taxpayer has to pay for it though.

You mean like how the euros paid for us saving their asses in WW2?

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Queasy
The missile defense system is not ineffective. Unproven in a live fire situation, yes. But, it has had a string of successes in test situations including multiple targets. It was also used to bring down that satellite a while back.

Ask yourself this, if it was so ineffective....would Russia really be pissed off about it?

Good point.

Russia is mad about it because it is a public display of their impotence, an encroachment into their backyard that they have historically influenced, and that the missile defense system is a plausible first strike enabling weapon system.

Plausible? More like laughable.

Not really. The idea behind it is to hit your opponent with a first strike aimed at his nuclear forces. If all goes well we wipe out 90%+ of the missiles they have, leaving them with only a handful to retaliate with, in theory we might be able to get our missile defense good enough to take out those remaining missiles. Thus, this makes a first strike more attractive.

Of course this is a horrible and destabilizing idea that's extremely expensive and probably makes us less safe in the long run. I think the missile defense program is hideously stupid for many reasons. I was just pointing out one of the reasons the Russians might not like it.

You do realize not all Russian missiles are fixed in place waiting for a first strike?
There are hundreds of warheads that are submarine launched, and many of the land launched ones are mobile either launched from trucks or hidden in innocent looking freight train containers. Destroying 90%+ of Russian missiles with 1st strike before they launch a retaliatory strike is nothing but a pipe dream.

Which is why nuclear powers, especially the US and Russia have second strike capabilities. It means that even if they launch a first strike aimed at destroying the US nuclear capabilities, that we have subs parked out there and mobile launchers hidden that move around and that we can still blow Russia and the rest of the world up even if 90% of our silos are knocked out. The same goes the other way.

This is MAD and even though the Cold War has ended and we have seen disarmament, many of the strategies from MAD still apply.

A realistic nuclear war isn't one where we unleash our full arsenals as the entire world will be gone. Most likely if a nuclear war goes off it's a LIMITED nuclear war being limited to the region that is in conflict.

The US interceptor system DOES change the balance of power. Even though it doesn't work against a full crazed "FIRE ZE MISSILES" war, neither Russia nor the US will pursue that type of nuclear war due to MAD. Limited nuclear strikes are made useless thus making conflict increasingly difficult. Now it's either blow each other to smithereens or nothing, and no one wants that.

Let's say the US is mobilizing to move into Georgia to help repel the Russian forces. A tactical nuke cannot be used by Russia due to the Polish interceptor system, or theoretically it should stop IRBMs or even if Russia decides to use an ICBM.

Russia sees this as a threat to them because they cannot exert pressure on other nations due to pure military might. The same goes for the US. If Russia threw in an interceptor system near our sphere of influence we would be quite pissed off too. Sure we aren't planning to nuke anyone, but the fact that you're challenging our military might suggests something. Moreover, a defensive system negates my offense meaning you are effectively weakening the Russian military by doing this.

I see why they can be pissed, but in a time when no one gives a damn about Russia due to the Georgian conflict, their complaints are answered with a "QQ more newb."