Russia Threatens PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE AGAINST NATO Over Missile Defense

300 miles "UP" will do the trick, won't it?

 

I have more than a "clue".

Please identify the Russian missile that is known to be able to defeat our missile defenses.

 

You get that the icepack in the Arctic Circle extends a lot further than 300 miles, right?

Unless we use icebreakers and push our AEGIS ships into a line across the Arctic Circle, we can't even stop the minority of a Russian nuclear strike.

 

Well, if for some reason , the already PROVEN INCREDIBLY ACCURATE, MOBIL AEGIS SYSTEM can't do the trick( highly unlikely), we ALWAYS HAVE THIS:


The USA’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program uses land-based missiles to intercept incoming ballistic missiles in the middle of their flight, outside the atmosphere. The missiles are currently based at 2 sites in the USA: 4 at Vandenberg AFB in California, and 20 (eventually 26) at Fort Greely in Alaska.

The well-known Patriot missiles provide what’s known as terminal-phase defense options, while longer-reach options like the land-based THAAD perform terminal or descent-phase interceptions. Both can be used against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), but their sensors and flight ranges are best suited to defense against shorter range missiles launched from in-theater. In contrast, GMD is designed to defend against ICBMs. It depends on tracking that begins in the boost phase, in order to allow true mid-course interception attempts in space, before descent or terminal phase options like THAAD and then Patriot would be tried. In order to accomplish that task, GMD missiles must use data feeds from an assortment of long-range sensors, including the naval SBX radar.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/3979M-Next-Step-Or-Last-Step-for-GMD-05229/


Please, dream up some more Russian ICBMs that can elude our tech...

 

So with a range of 300 miles, an AEGIS ship can protect a total of 71000 square miles from nuclear strikes (if you dumb it down ignoring that 300 miles is its in atmosphere slant range and that its range when attacking orbital targets is A LOT shorter).

We have about 100 AEGIS ships, meaning that we can cover roughtly 7 million square miles of the Earth and protect them from nuclear attack.

It's a good thing that the Earth isn't oh I don't know, like 500 million miles square or anything, right?

So again, how is this system "Worldwide"?

 

We can launch from ships ANYWHERE ON EARTH, using staellite data to track, as the links you, (obviously) refuse to read, outlined in great detail.

And, of course, you keep forgetting the TRUMP CARD; as POWERFUL as the AEGIS SYSTEM IS, we do not have to RELY ON IT ALONE, DO WE? :



The USA’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program uses land-based missiles to intercept incoming ballistic missiles in the middle of their flight, outside the atmosphere. The missiles are currently based at 2 sites in the USA: 4 at Vandenberg AFB in California, and 20 (eventually 26) at Fort Greely in Alaska.

The well-known Patriot missiles provide what’s known as terminal-phase defense options, while longer-reach options like the land-based THAAD perform terminal or descent-phase interceptions. Both can be used against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), but their sensors and flight ranges are best suited to defense against shorter range missiles launched from in-theater. In contrast, GMD is designed to defend against ICBMs. It depends on tracking that begins in the boost phase, in order to allow true mid-course interception attempts in space, before descent or terminal phase options like THAAD and then Patriot would be tried. In order to accomplish that task, GMD missiles must use data feeds from an assortment of long-range sensors, including the naval SBX radar.

 

The sites in the US will have roughtly 100 deployed intercepters. The Russians have close to a thousand ICBM's.

As for Patriot and THAAD, those are great, if they are deployed, set up, and in the right place. What are the chances of that happening with 30 minutes warning?

The Russians don't have to "elude" our tech. They will simply overwhelm it. We don't have enough intercepters, they aren't in the right place, and in the event of nuclear war like you and your buddy are proposing we won't have enough time to deploy them.

 

How exaclty can a missile with a 300 mile range be "launched from anywhere on Earth"? Your "trump card" is only going to have 100 intercepters. How are 100 intercepters supposed to stop 1000 ICBM's carrying MIRV's?

Seriously WHAT THE (*)(*)(*)(*)?!? This thread should go up as an example of why Liberals think Rightwingers are idiots.

 

Says who? Where did you get that number?

LINK,please...


Hilarious. "What are the chances" of the Russians succesffully launching 1000 ICBMs? ZERO; they wouldn't DARE, as they know that their crap is as likely to blow up on LAUNCH as it is to successfully reach a US target.
WHo, exactly , has INVENTORIED" the leftover USSR ICBMs? You?

Each US anti ballistic missile has MUTLIPLE WARHEADS,and our missiles are PROVEN DEADLY ACCURATE.
We have MORE THAN ENOUGH to annihilate them, and unlike you, they KNOW IT....

 

If we launch at them like you are proposing, they would flush every missile they could at us, while probably leaving their subs as a second strike option.

Of course we have more than enough to annihilate them, what you are apparently too (*)(*)(*)(*)ing dumb to understand is that they have enough to annihilate us TOO.

 

I truly believe nuclear weapons will eventually be outlawed by international law. Unfortunately, I also believe it will only happen after at least one major world city is incinerated in a nuclear holocaust.

Here's my idea:

1. All nuclear armed nations agree that possession of nuclear weapons by a sovereign nation or any other entity is a violation of international law and subject to retaliatory response sufficient to neutralize the threat.
2. Some world maximum number of nuclear weapons, say 1000, will be maintained by an authority set up for this purpose. The composition of the stockpile will reflect the share each nuke country had prior to the agreement, and each country is responsible for safely maintaining the weapons that reflect their contribution to the stockpile. If a nation decides it no longer want to maintain its share, their contribution will be destroyed.
3. The one thousand or so nukes are stored together in a neutral country facility (I favor Canada) guarded by an international security force comprised of nationals reflecting the composition mix of the nukes.
4. After passage of the law internationally outlawing nukes, any country or other entity that's discovered developing or possessing nukes will be attacked and neutralized by an international force maintained for just this purpose.

Yeah, sounds fantastical now. But I think ideas like this will be less so after one or several world cities are torched in a nuclear holocaust.

 

PLease link to your "inventory" numbers of our GBM of "about 100 intercptors", and the "1000 Russian ICBMs".

WHat you are obviously too dumb to understand is that a man firing a rifle accurately , is far more likely to win a battle with a man spraying an inaccurate, high fire rate weapon ,than vice-versa.

The US missile defense was DESIGNED to nullify any Russian threat, and will easily do so. Work on something "Made in Russia", sometime,and get a real grasp of their "technical capabilities".

I have owned ,and worked on, their cars, tractors, computers, firearms,and kitchen wear. It is ALL garbage; their ICBM tech os NO EXCEPTION.

 

You may need to read the fine print..

Translation: Space militarization allows protection of U.S. investments without the messy restrictions of international law. All the better to ensure the "have-nots" don't step out of line.

The Space Command released it's AIR FORCE SPACE COMMAND STRATEGIC MASTER PLAN to go beyond U.S. "control" of space for military purposes to "ownership," which is to be permanent. Ownership of space is "key to our nation’s military effectiveness," permitting:

Similar plans had been outlined in the May 2002 "Defense Planning Guidance", partially leaked, which called for a strategy of "forward deterrence" in which missiles launched from space platforms would be able to carry out almost instant "unwarned attacks:"

Military analyst William Arkin comments that:

 

You're right. I was wrong. I went back and used your link instead:

There is only going to be 30 (THIRTY) deployed intercepters. 4 in California and 26 in Alaska.

Russia has newer ICBM's than we do. This isn't the 1960's anymore. Russian missiles work.

Source?

 

Edit......

 

Tells you how "concerned" we are with Russians trying to "overload our system", doesn't it?
There is nowhere in my link that states that number as our total deployed ABMs.

There crap is well...crap. Ours is not. Sorry that that bothers you so much...
Please link to your source for the number of "interceptors". Make sure it includes the number of warheads per "interceptor".

It doesn't matter how "new Russian crap is; the USSR was the pinnacle of Russisn manufacturing, and it SUCKED. The crap that they build now is laughable, compared ot US Military tech.

 

Yet for some reason an AK-47 will still kill someone even if they are wearing body armor. Funny that, huh?

You are assuming that the Russian missiles will just be fired widely rather than being redundantly targetted to mitigate the possibility of some being shot down.

Oh, here's your link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Missile_Troops#Numbers_of_missiles_and_warheads

I was wrong on one detail: they don't have 1,000 ICBM's they have 1,000 deployed warheads. Either way, each one would have to be intercepted.

 

I love how communists call forcing communbist totalitariansim onto people is "liberation theology"....

 

I used your own link. You still have to provide a link showing that the interceptors carry multiple warheads.

The Russians don't have to have perfect equipment to make a couple hundred US military bases and population centers disappear.

 

Except that you'll never hit them at 200 yds. AKs are "rugged"...PERIOD. Also VERY CHEAPLY MADE, which is why they are so popular in the Third World.

A .30-30 Marlin lever action will do the same, except that it will hit them at400 yards, easily.

You can score a head shot, first shot, with an M4 at 200 yds.

Horsecrap; most of that launch would crash into Siberia....if it makes it off of the pad.

 

Then you shouldn't have trouble backing up this claim with evidence, should you?

Do so.

 

Archbishop Romero was a Communist? Is this your way of pretending you didnt see what I just presented here?

 

You have to understand, Grokmaster thinks that it was okay for us to give weapons and money to the Contras while they murdered innocent villagers and raped nuns because "they were fighting communists for us".

 

Yes. Actually, they use it every couple years.

 

There are a lot of fascists here. The fascist death squads in El Salvador shared his view that "all priests are communists." There slogan was "be a patriot. Kill a priest," once the bishops adopted the "preferential option for the poor."