Medvedev wants to meet Obama

I think the missile deffense sheild is a wast and not effective anyway regardless of if Russia puts missles near Poland. There is no way we can have those missles shields there and not expect Russia to do something to repay in kind that favor. Also I dont trust the system to work anyway.

Got any reasons to back this up?
 
Werbung:
I think the missile deffense sheild is a wast and not effective anyway regardless of if Russia puts missles near Poland. There is no way we can have those missles shields there and not expect Russia to do something to repay in kind that favor. Also I dont trust the system to work anyway.

Well obviously Russia is going to respond, but the missile shield in Poland is useless against Russia and they know it. They are using it as a smoke screen to do what they have always wanted to do, which is reassert themselves on the world stage.

The missile commitment to Poland was 10 interceptors, which is meaningless against a Russian threat, but would have the potential to deflect a missile from Iran.

I will admit however that our missile defense interceptors are wildly incapable of posing a real deterrent to a country like Russia. Even in the case of Poland, the PATRIOT missile batteries typically declare a success when a missile is deflected, not when a warhead is destroyed. This works fine when Iraq throws conventional SCUDS into Israel, but to deflect a nuclear warhead, the system needs vast improvements.

The main point of the shield however is not to actually shoot down any missiles, it is to send a clear message to Poland and the Ukraine (and NATO) that we are not going to back down on our security commitments in the region. That was essential coming on the heels of our pathetic response to the Russian action in Georgia.

As for the remarks about Obama meeting with Medvedev....anyone recall Bush's meeting with Putin? god that went well did it not? Bush came back all warm and fuzzy cuz he felt that the KGB man was someone we could trust because he looked in his eyes...HE is KGB you Tard wake up.

Bush was wrong. It was wishful thinking. We want Russia to be our friend, but we are asking Russia to be something they are not. Russia is mad about the loss of the Cold War and is not interested in a world run by the United States.

Given this, for Obama to not even take office before signaling that we are going to back off of our missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic sends a clear message to Eastern Europe that the United States is not readily going to stand up to Russian aggression. This fact becomes especially worrisome after Russia recently invaded its neighbor.
 
Well obviously Russia is going to respond, but the missile shield in Poland is useless against Russia and they know it. They are using it as a smoke screen to do what they have always wanted to do, which is reassert themselves on the world stage.

The missile commitment to Poland was 10 interceptors, which is meaningless against a Russian threat, but would have the potential to deflect a missile from Iran.

I will admit however that our missile defense interceptors are wildly incapable of posing a real deterrent to a country like Russia. Even in the case of Poland, the PATRIOT missile batteries typically declare a success when a missile is deflected, not when a warhead is destroyed. This works fine when Iraq throws conventional SCUDS into Israel, but to deflect a nuclear warhead, the system needs vast improvements.

The main point of the shield however is not to actually shoot down any missiles, it is to send a clear message to Poland and the Ukraine (and NATO) that we are not going to back down on our security commitments in the region. That was essential coming on the heels of our pathetic response to the Russian action in Georgia.



Bush was wrong. It was wishful thinking. We want Russia to be our friend, but we are asking Russia to be something they are not. Russia is mad about the loss of the Cold War and is not interested in a world run by the United States.

Given this, for Obama to not even take office before signaling that we are going to back off of our missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic sends a clear message to Eastern Europe that the United States is not readily going to stand up to Russian aggression. This fact becomes especially worrisome after Russia recently invaded its neighbor.


yes I know what Russia wants, and basically we are going to hand it to them , give the reason to justify there expansion and military build up. Putin ( who really is in charge still) wants a new cold war, to rebuild the USSR and make it a power again. I think the missiles are just a small chip to bargain with, and that fact that they care , and know its not much of a defence at the same time, says its just something to justify, they actually want us to put them there.

the US really needs to hit Russia where it hurts, Econ and trade. Moving the missiles would be basically means to them in reality, outside they lose justification for a build up of arms and pestering against Europe to keep them out of affairs in central Asia. that or its going to have to bloody its nose and realy hit them, but we have common enemies in that region as arab militants have and are pushing even more extremist Islam into areas with links to Bin Laden and others.
 
China not only stole every missile design we had in the 90's, but they are expanding on them.
While I will agree the Chinese were very effective in thier technological espionage, and that is a concern to this day. America still is by far the leader in such issues as I said earlier. Nobody has the missle interception capability the US has, both in the laser or ballistic projectile class.
Our missile technology is older and falling behind.
As I said earlier, our lead is still substantial amongst other countries. But we must take into consideration the concept of what the MADD shield provides us as a deterent. As someone who lives well within the range of the ability to project military force of Russia and China, and within missile range of N.Korea, I support a missile defense. I think the realistic probability of a nuclear exchange that any plausible missile defense could provide against Russia and China just isnt there. The fact we will nuke them right back is the deterent there. The real question is N. Korea. A suicidal, or rogue missile shot, the missile shield would potentially save millions of lives. But it is not the entire answer.
As for the Air Force, the F-22 is quite the machine, but in terms of extending a credible nuclear deterrent to our allies, we are lagging. An F-22 can not shoot down an incoming missile, and the PATRIOT missile system is not as reliable as we are led to believe.
I dont disagree, except that we are lagging. While I dont want to necessarily lessen our work on these programs, I know we are quite a few steps ahead of everyone else in these regards. I get to see the -22s regularly. Amazing.
But I will also note that our conventional forces and the lead we have over everyone else is a huge compliment to our nukes.
But I agree, in terms of conventional technology we are well ahead of our foes, but in terms of missile and nuclear technology we are not.
OK, what would you like to see happen?
 
I am not saying that we would lose a war to Russia or China right now, but our allies on their borders are not pleased when they do missile tests (or invade their neighbors) and our response is to cut missile defense and bail.
.........can I just ask what this fixation is on Missiles and Missiles Sheilds? Why is nobody tasking about ground operations and intelligence....these are the issues! The reason that the world is in the mess it is now is becuase nobody has any idea what the opposition is doing. Compared that to the WW2 for example when codes were broken agents were reporting and analysts had solid information to work with. Now eveyone stares into computer screens hoping that the next pass of the Keyhole will reveal all.........and guess what.......it doesn't........

Missiles suck...........they're useless, learn about counter-insurgency close quarter infanty tactics and train your troops in the art of urban warfare and teach your diplomats diplomacy then train some honest to god spys and you'll be able to act instead of re-act.
 
yes I know what Russia wants, and basically we are going to hand it to them , give the reason to justify there expansion and military build up. Putin ( who really is in charge still) wants a new cold war, to rebuild the USSR and make it a power again. I think the missiles are just a small chip to bargain with, and that fact that they care , and know its not much of a defence at the same time, says its just something to justify, they actually want us to put them there.

They do not want us to put them their at all. Russia needs no excuse to continue a military build up. Putting missiles in Poland or not will make no difference in that regard. Russia will simply come up with another excuse if that one is not there. But we have to keep it there to reassure Poland and Eastern Europe.

the US really needs to hit Russia where it hurts, Econ and trade. Moving the missiles would be basically means to them in reality, outside they lose justification for a build up of arms and pestering against Europe to keep them out of affairs in central Asia. that or its going to have to bloody its nose and realy hit them, but we have common enemies in that region as arab militants have and are pushing even more extremist Islam into areas with links to Bin Laden and others.

We should not be going after the Russian economy, their economy already pretty much does not exist. Sure we have common enemies, but the idea of Russia doing anything meaningful to combat them with us is not going to happen.
 
While I will agree the Chinese were very effective in thier technological espionage, and that is a concern to this day. America still is by far the leader in such issues as I said earlier. Nobody has the missle interception capability the US has, both in the laser or ballistic projectile class.

Our laser interceptors do not even work. Conventionally we remain dominant, but we are unable to defend against attacks on our satellites, we cannot defend against an EMP attack. We are more vulnerable that you might think.

As I said earlier, our lead is still substantial amongst other countries. But we must take into consideration the concept of what the MADD shield provides us as a deterent. As someone who lives well within the range of the ability to project military force of Russia and China, and within missile range of N.Korea, I support a missile defense. I think the realistic probability of a nuclear exchange that any plausible missile defense could provide against Russia and China just isnt there. The fact we will nuke them right back is the deterent there. The real question is N. Korea. A suicidal, or rogue missile shot, the missile shield would potentially save millions of lives. But it is not the entire answer.

No it is not the entire answer, but it is a big piece of the answer in my opinion. I am also not entirely convinced that mutual assured destruction remains relevant today. I think if you play the Cold War out 100 times, we have nuclear war in at least half the scenarios. The idea that there will never be a nuclear war seems far fetched to me, especially as more and more countries go nuclear.

Further, how can you rely on mutually assured destruction when all your satellites can be shot down and you are wide open to an EMP attack, as well as a nuclear attack. Forward submarines do you no good if you cannot communicate with them.

I dont disagree, except that we are lagging. While I dont want to necessarily lessen our work on these programs, I know we are quite a few steps ahead of everyone else in these regards. I get to see the -22s regularly. Amazing.
But I will also note that our conventional forces and the lead we have over everyone else is a huge compliment to our nukes.

OK, what would you like to see happen?

I would like to see a missile defense platform developed that works and put into space to protect our satellites, and if not I want to see a plan in place to run the military without any satellites. I would like to spell out what the response to an EMP attack is. I would like to develop new missiles and better warheads to maintain our nuclear superiority, and I would like to see weapons systems such as the F-22 obviously continued and expanded.

There are a lot of things I would like to see, obviously many of them are not going to happen however.
 
.........can I just ask what this fixation is on Missiles and Missiles Sheilds? Why is nobody tasking about ground operations and intelligence....these are the issues!

Because we are behind in missile technology and we have no missile defense.

Aside from that, there are a lot of people talking about ground operations and intelligence, and I agree 100% that we need better intelligence. Part of the problem is that everyone thinks you can collect all the intel you need from space, which is simply not true. As well as that, everyone thinks there is such a thing as the smoking gun in the intel world. That is not true either.

We absolutely need to get our intelligence community working together. We have 16 intelligence agencies in this country, which pretty much all work independently of each other and have no clear mandate in many instances as to what they are even supposed to be doing. DHS did not solve this problem.

The reason that the world is in the mess it is now is becuase nobody has any idea what the opposition is doing. Compared that to the WW2 for example when codes were broken agents were reporting and analysts had solid information to work with. Now eveyone stares into computer screens hoping that the next pass of the Keyhole will reveal all.........and guess what.......it doesn't........

I agree, I have been saying that for years now. Although it is much easier to get intel on a foe like Germany during open war, than to gather any useful intel about a group like the Muslim Brotherhood (who to this day cannot be infiltrated)

Missiles suck...........they're useless, learn about counter-insurgency close quarter infanty tactics and train your troops in the art of urban warfare and teach your diplomats diplomacy then train some honest to god spys and you'll be able to act instead of re-act.

Missile do not suck and are not useless. You can train all you want for counter-insurgency and close quarter infantry tactics, but what do you do when a conventional war breaks out and missiles are used? Say oh darn, we forgot to train for that?

Our diplomats are OK at diplomacy, certainly not the best, but certainly not the worst. You make it seem like even the best spy will be able to get great intelligence. In the intel world there is no such thing.

Typically a report will come out that says "a credible source" (which means nothing really) says a nuclear warhead is missing in Pakistan. That will be all you know, and all that you typically will ever know. So the question then becomes what do you do?

While a missile shield wont solve anything in that scenario, it absolutely can reassure an ally against a rouge state like Iran and North Korea. That reassurance is often times the most important factor in diplomacy.
 
China not only stole every missile design we had in the 90's, but they are expanding on them. Our missile technology is older and falling behind.

As for the Air Force, the F-22 is quite the machine, but in terms of extending a credible nuclear deterrent to our allies, we are lagging. An F-22 can not shoot down an incoming missile, and the PATRIOT missile system is not as reliable as we are led to believe.

But I agree, in terms of conventional technology we are well ahead of our foes, but in terms of missile and nuclear technology we are not.

if by that you mean failed almost 100% of the time in Iraq the first time yes. It realy was a failed system though improvements have made it workable now. funny how the media showed a near 100% kill ratio for it in the first gulf war then it turned out it was more like almost 0
 
.........can I just ask what this fixation is on Missiles and Missiles Sheilds? Why is nobody tasking about ground operations and intelligence....these are the issues! The reason that the world is in the mess it is now is becuase nobody has any idea what the opposition is doing. Compared that to the WW2 for example when codes were broken agents were reporting and analysts had solid information to work with. Now eveyone stares into computer screens hoping that the next pass of the Keyhole will reveal all.........and guess what.......it doesn't........

Missiles suck...........they're useless, learn about counter-insurgency close quarter infanty tactics and train your troops in the art of urban warfare and teach your diplomats diplomacy then train some honest to god spys and you'll be able to act instead of re-act.

Jimmy Carter got the US out of the spy business, because it was not "nice". Bubba Clinton also degraded the US military and spy services. He was too busy focussing on things like "affirmative action" in the military, recruiting pregnant "soldiers", infecting the pentagon with feminism, and creating military farces in places like haiti and somalia, to worry about such trivia as intelligence services and the emergence of al qaeda. Obama will CERTAINLY continue the liberal tradition of ignoring the intelligence services.
 
Our laser interceptors do not even work. Conventionally we remain dominant, but we are unable to defend against attacks on our satellites, we cannot defend against an EMP attack. We are more vulnerable that you might think.
As for the laser issue, there have been mixed reviews, but I honestly doubt for security reasons we are getting the whole story with the lasers. Nevertheless we are leading the world in laser technology. We are also the leaders in long range ballistic missle interceptors. Just 6 weeks ago I was driving next to Fort Greely, Alaska. Where part of the system is located. They have had some luck with thier equipment and it is being constantly refined.
As for EMP attacks, that of course would be among the worse case scenarios and probably lead to a signifigant nuclear exchange, probably ending humanity as we know it. Outside of some specialized buildings, including virtually all civilian circuitboards would be fried. There is no real practical defense. The defense against such an attack is the overwhelming nuclear capability we possess that deters anyone from doing this.
No it is not the entire answer, but it is a big piece of the answer in my opinion. I am also not entirely convinced that mutual assured destruction remains relevant today.
It certainly has gotten us where we are today in terms of no nuclear warfare since 1945. It certainly remains relevant when it comes to our dealings with other major nuclear powers. Specifically China and Russia. Where it isnt applicable is the non-government sponsored scenario, but even then it is. Because from what I understand nuclear fallout is fairly quickly traced back to its origin and the necessary retaliation can ensue.
I think if you play the Cold War out 100 times, we have nuclear war in at least half the scenarios. The idea that there will never be a nuclear war seems far fetched to me, especially as more and more countries go nuclear.
Well if I found a genie bottle somewhere, one of my three wishes will be for nuclear weapons to go away. I hope nukes are never used in anger again.
But as more countries do become nuclear, it increases the MADD factor. Iran, Pakistan, NKorea and anyone else who might have them against America's best interest is made very aware that if they use one, we will respond accordingly and thier own country will cease to exist. The knowledge that using offensive nuclear weapons against an American ally result in the utter destruction of everything in thier own country is one hell of a good reason not to.
Further, how can you rely on mutually assured destruction when all your satellites can be shot down and you are wide open to an EMP attack, as well as a nuclear attack. Forward submarines do you no good if you cannot communicate with them.
Shooting down sattelites is very difficult. While it can be done, I dont think anyone has the capacity, now or in the near future where they will be able to inflict signifigant damage to the overall communications system of the US government, especially to the point where it couldnt order deployed boomer subs to launch thier ordinance.


I would like to see a missile defense platform developed that works and put into space to protect our satellites, and if not I want to see a plan in place to run the military without any satellites. I would like to spell out what the response to an EMP attack is. I would like to develop new missiles and better warheads to maintain our nuclear superiority, and I would like to see weapons systems such as the F-22 obviously continued and expanded.
You and I are generally in agreement here. I have trust that those who need to know those sort of things are able to do thier jobs, fully briefed and trained for when the unimaginable should happen.
There are a lot of things I would like to see, obviously many of them are not going to happen however.
:D I think we all have our lists.
 
As for the laser issue, there have been mixed reviews, but I honestly doubt for security reasons we are getting the whole story with the lasers. Nevertheless we are leading the world in laser technology. We are also the leaders in long range ballistic missle interceptors. Just 6 weeks ago I was driving next to Fort Greely, Alaska. Where part of the system is located. They have had some luck with thier equipment and it is being constantly refined.
As for EMP attacks, that of course would be among the worse case scenarios and probably lead to a signifigant nuclear exchange, probably ending humanity as we know it. Outside of some specialized buildings, including virtually all civilian circuitboards would be fried. There is no real practical defense. The defense against such an attack is the overwhelming nuclear capability we possess that deters anyone from doing this.

It certainly has gotten us where we are today in terms of no nuclear warfare since 1945. It certainly remains relevant when it comes to our dealings with other major nuclear powers. Specifically China and Russia. Where it isnt applicable is the non-government sponsored scenario, but even then it is. Because from what I understand nuclear fallout is fairly quickly traced back to its origin and the necessary retaliation can ensue.

When you run scenarios like that like of a bomb detonating in say New York, energy people will tell you it takes 6 months for them to get a preliminary report for you on where it "might" have come from.

What do you do when a radical group in the UK gets a backpack bomb into New York? Do you launch a nuclear retaliation against the UK?

Well if I found a genie bottle somewhere, one of my three wishes will be for nuclear weapons to go away. I hope nukes are never used in anger again.
But as more countries do become nuclear, it increases the MADD factor. Iran, Pakistan, NKorea and anyone else who might have them against America's best interest is made very aware that if they use one, we will respond accordingly and thier own country will cease to exist. The knowledge that using offensive nuclear weapons against an American ally result in the utter destruction of everything in thier own country is one hell of a good reason not to.

This assume we always are dealing with a rational actor, or someone that can be deterred. How do you deter someone who wants to die?

You can make the case that the world is more peaceful when everyone has a nuke (people have been making it since 1945), but the credibility of our deterrent is what is at stake. If our allies see us as not willing to use nuclear weapons to defend them then they are going to look elsewhere for a deterrent, or develop their own nuclear weapons. When we continually bail on allies like Georgia and now potentially Poland, everyone else all around the world takes notice of that and wonder if we would do the same to them.

Shooting down sattelites is very difficult. While it can be done, I dont think anyone has the capacity, now or in the near future where they will be able to inflict signifigant damage to the overall communications system of the US government, especially to the point where it couldnt order deployed boomer subs to launch thier ordinance.

Well China has the ability, they have already done it. I agree they would be unable to shoot them all down (yet). But say it is a cyber attack (China does this daily) that shuts down our communications systems. What do we do then?
 
Werbung:
The main point of the shield however is not to actually shoot down any missiles, it is to send a clear message to Poland and the Ukraine (and NATO) that we are not going to back down on our security commitments in the region. That was essential coming on the heels of our pathetic response to the Russian action in Georgia.
....what is the point of a missile shield if the Russians turn off the gas? Also, what good was a missile shield in Georgia? These are just a couple of thoughts that occurr to me based on the billions that are about to be invested on a totally pointless piece of garbage.

Of all the avenues of weapons technology that are being researched at the moment one would expect a slightly more imaginative response to an outdated threat. The ballistic missile pretty much reached its peak in the seventies in terms of the amount of land you could reduce to dust and ashes and the greatest challenge was to reduce the accuracy to within a few yards of the aim point...anyway its all a game I think the US is really developing other bits and bobs a tad more sophisticated than ABMs and missile sheilds.

Oh yeah did you guys know that you've just upgraded one of our radar sites in the UK? USD1 billion contract from Boeing and Raytheon to shine up and clean the rust on Fylingsdale ...ta very much ... we don't do much with it but its nice and clean now ;) it can see from Canada to the Urals and down as far as Central Africa...begs the questions why you want to plant another one in Poland....
 
Back
Top