So what you're saying is that it's smart that some countries that Russia invaded in the past are interested in not "understimating" what they might do in the future?

I mean really NPR. Telling countries they'd better not pursue means of defending themselves against you or your going to attack them militarily?

I could understand maybe if they we're arming up with nukes or offensive weapons. But to threaten military action for getting defensive weaponry? What are they supposed to think about that?

Russia has done many bad things in the past, while the communists were in power. But you have done many bad things as well, and no nation is clean-handed.

Russia is a democracy today. There is no communism, no COMINTERN, no crap like that. Yet, you still look upon them as if Stalin is in power.

The Cold War is over, remember? And your puppet Yeltsin is done, too.

New guys are in charge now. I wouldn't underestimate them.

You cannot have a democracy with only one party. Russia is a Nationalistic nation run by a clandestine Junta.

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

Ideology: Self Preservation.

You keep talking at cross purposes. One moment you'll be talking about how Russia isn't a worry and the next talking about how the great bear is rising again and we should be worried.

Right now Russia isn't so bad. But they're down at the moment. However as you say they're getting back up, and while doing so they're starting to backslide. No free press, elections that are increasingly a joke.

If I was a neighboring country I'd be interested in some defensive measures.

As for the US, as I posted in another thread Russia has said it would be willing to use nuke pre-emptivly to defend allies. They didn't say specifically who that might mean. But all in all it shows a possible threat the US would be unwise to ignore.

If Russia just wants to grow into a wealthy country on oil sales they are free to do so, and should just laugh off the waste of money involved in missile defense.

i'm just curious. Where does the nuclear fallout land when they shoot a nuclear missile out of the air?

america kill russian military (in response to OP's original title)

__________________

Join Bush Country - PoliticalForum.com's Largest Member Community

"Because he's the hero America deserves,
but not the one it needs right now...
and so we'll hunt him, because he can take it.
Because he's not a hero. He's a silent guardian,
a watchful protector...A DARK KNIGHT."

Depends exactly how it goes down.

Ideally the warhead is disabled and simply falls to the ground without detonating. Or failsafes kick in when the body of the missile is destroyed and it again doesn't detonate.

Worse is that the warhead gets blown, but in this case the initiation should be all wrong and a critical mass isn't achieved. In this case you'd have some radioactive gunk in the air but still not that bad.

Next the warhead could detonate in the atmosphere which supposedly makes for all sorts of EMP fun. I'm not clear on the details. Radioactivity would probably be widespread but hopefully not too high of a dose anywhere. Drink red wine. Supposedly that helps.

Worse is that the thing gets knock off course and just blows up whenever it gets to the right altitude.

first option is not possible. You can't simply disable the rocket.

all other options have fallout. The rocket is going to explode either with or without reaching critical mass. However there will be fallout. So i'm pretty curious above which land it's going to explode. That's not really clear to me.

Unfortunitly the first option is all too common. I say unfortunitly because that's what happened with our patriot systems. They'd brag about the 90%+ or whatever kill rate but often we'd just hit the rocket leaving the warhead intact. So while it's nice it didn't get to it's intended target the warhead would still land on somebodies house or something.

Though I'm thinking shorter ranged weapons. With an ICBM the first case is most likely if the missile gets hit in the boost phase. And for that you need to be pretty close to the launch site. I presume this is why we're trying to crawl up Russias rear with these missile systems.

After it's done boosting they fly through the air pretty much just using gravity. Now I guess I didn't say it. But warheads are designed to handle re-entry. They are not made out of Balsa wood. So a near miss at this stage could hurl a warhead far far off target. Also on the long range ones if you hit it high enough I believe they aren't considered a threat to the earth. It's just exploding out in space. There is some radioactivity but much is just going to go out into space and the rest is going to be spread over a massive area. So it isn't going to be concentrated.

In the terminal phase things could be less fun. This would be near where the target is. With a conventional missle slapping it around can make it miss it's target. But since missing by a mile isn't such a big deal with a nuke I think we'd have to hit them square and hope that we get case #2.

So generally speaking the situation is better the closer the intercepters are to Russia.

They forgot to put "warning" in quotes.



What, they'll write an even angrier letter? heh heh

Russia is just embarrassing themselves with all these empty threats.




heh heh heh heh...even their own military is getting frustrated at their lack of real action. That is funny.



Yeah, good luck with that.

They might manage to sway Commie China (not certain, since China needs US investment in it's economy). but it is unlikely India will join them.



Oh no, Russia is making empty threats again. Everybody panic!



Why?



Wow, I guess that means they will have to buy oil from one of the other million countries selling it around the world.


...and rolling over and going back to sleep, heh heh


Which is exactly why I don't feel threatened by them anymore. I know we have no reason to attack them, and I know they will never attack us unless they are attacked first.

Which means they will never attack. Which means there is no military threat from them.


From what I have seen so far it looks like we have been overestimating them.



Wherever it was hit at. Contrary to popular belief, it is actually very difficult to detonate a nuke. Simply blowing up the missile wont do more than scatter the fuel around. And primitive nukes that Iran is likely to use wont have much nuclear fuel.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?