Thread: Russia Threatens PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE AGAINST NATO Over Missile Defense

Originally Posted by Horhey

Exactly. That's the real danger with this missile shield. Russia's response will be to build up it's nuclear weapons capacity to try to overwhelm it. China then responds to Russia and then Pakistan to China, and so on.

Or they will try to develop an un-interceptible system that would be even worse, like a Pluto Cruise Missile or Nuclear equipped satelites in geo-synch orbit over the continental US.

Originally Posted by Bluesguy

We are much more able both technologically and economically to enlarge our missile defense system than for them to build and arm more Nuclear ICBM's.

It's always cheaper to build a better attack than a better defense.

Originally Posted by Bluesguy

We are much more able both technologically and economically to enlarge our missile defense system than for them to build and arm more Nuclear ICBM's.

Now, now; don't belabor the painfully obvious; it'll wreck their little game of "The Big Bad Russians", which is really fun to watch, and play with them.

They can make up a lot of funny stuff...

Originally Posted by Questerr

Or they will try to develop an un-interceptible system that would be even worse, like a Pluto Cruise Missile or Nuclear equipped satelites in geo-synch orbit over the continental US.

Still waiting for the "links" you claim you provided, citing the Russains AND Red CHinese shooting down orbital speed targets in the stratosphere.

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Still waiting for the "links" you claim you provided, citing the Russains AND Red CHinese shooting down orbital speed targets in the stratosphere.

Post #162

Russia Threatens PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE AGAINST NATO Over Missile Defense

[QUOTE=Questerr;1061184523]My own speculation? I posted links. And again, the AEGIS system is useless for shooting down orbital objects unless it is under their orbital path. How are we going to get AEGIS ships into the Arctic Circle again?

OMG! You're telling me that a prototype weapon that is still in the development phase has failures? What?!? When has that ever happened in history?

You have evidence of the failure rate of any of their actual developed weapons?

Typical of russian tech,and those are just what we KNOW ABOUT; they hide most.

Where was that exactly? Iraq, Serbia, and Afghanistan all had radar systems dating from the 1960's.

Baghdad's ari defense system was DESIGNED and DEPLOYED by the Soviets, in the late 1980's,and vastly improved AFTER the First Gulf War, as well.

Yep. We should deploy jamming craft. That wouldn't telegraph our attack or anything.

Doesn't matter if they CANNOT SEE US, does it? By the time they realize that their air defenses are no longer operational, tye will be colored spots in glass.

I tell you what, you should go back to playing Command and Conquer and leave military strategy to people who actually know something about it.

The "people who know something about it" is where I've, OBVOIOUSLY , gotten my data.

Come one, keep telling us al about the Mighty Russians...it's hysterically funny...

Originally Posted by Bluesguy

We are much more able both technologically and economically to enlarge our missile defense system than for them to build and arm more Nuclear ICBM's.

The US is supposed to be working to reduce it's nuclear weapons capacity and preventing proliferation but the Obama administration is doing the opposite.

The Washington Post: Obama, Medvedev sign treaty to reduce nuclear weapons

McClatchy Newspapers: Obama to seek major increase in nuclear weapons funding

The only country in the world to ever use nuclear weapons, which also has the largest arsenal is telling other countries they cant have them.

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Typical of russian tech,and those are just what we KNOW ABOUT; they hide most.

So you don't have any proof? Conceding defeat?

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Baghdad's ari defense system was DESIGNED and DEPLOYED by the Soviets, in the late 1980's,and vastly improved AFTER the First Gulf War, as well.

It still consisted of 1960's tech. The best SAM system the Iraqis deployed was the SA-6, and early models of it at that.

Source of their ADA system being "vastly improved" after 91?

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Doesn't matter if they CANNOT SEE US, does it? By the time they realize that their air defenses are no longer operational, tye will be colored spots in glass.

If launch jamming aircraft over Russia and they believe that we may be attempting to attack their deterrant capability or to launch a nuclear strike on them, they will launch pre-emptively. It's basic nuclear strategy.

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

Come one, keep telling us al about the Mighty Russians...it's hysterically funny...

I've never said the Russians are "mighty". I've merely claimed what every military expert does: that the Russian military is capable of launch a retaliatory strike on the US that would overwhelm our missile defenses. Therefore MAD is maintained and the idea that we could "win" a nuclear war against them is laughable. Even if only a tenth of their warheads get through, that's still over 100 military bases and population centers in the US annihilated. The only thing we would do after that would be hand the world to China on a silver platter.

Originally Posted by Grokmaster

MOSCOW - [I]Russia's top military officer has threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on U.S.-led NATO missile defence facilities in Eastern Europe if Washington goes ahead with its controversial plan to build a missile shield.

This threat sounds like: 'Russia' using it's old cold war fear mongering strategy (propaganda spread via their MSM system to the people) once again to put the people in a state of fear, and this can trigger revolution throughout Europe. As happened begin eighties when it was about the atomic bomb/nuclear weapons/SDI threat (that and the whole cold war period was clearly a test for this post 9/11 era, to see how many people would be in the streets demonstrating and the political unrest)

Originally Posted by Questerr

It's always cheaper to build a better attack than a better defense.

Oh no it's not and not so in this case once we have the technology. A one hit kinetic missile is lots cheaper than a multiple war head multiple targeting ICBM system.