Russia Threatens to electronically hamper U.S. missile defense facilityies in Poland

[Turboswede]

Iran has developed the Shihab-3 Missile.

They can reach up to 1200 miles now!

I think its more like 1200km or about 900 miles, that puts Israel in the sphere but Poland is still about 500 miles out of range. If the reason is to defend from Iranian missiles, why aren't Turkey & Romania deploying anti missile systems?

It seems counter-factual to argue that the missile defense system is intended as a safe guard against Iranian missiles. I am sure it is intended to counter a potential Russian attack. If I were running the Russian Federation, my natural response would be to up the number of short and medium range ballistic missiles in order to make up for any “erosion” caused by the Polish defenses in the event that a Russian missile launch is warranted.

 

[elvis]

lol, you're a dunce you know that

YOu really going to compare Georgia's military to our own?


Why do you always have to belittle our armed forces. I don't fucking get it.

Yes, Russia military is a fucking joke basically

Airforce

Their top fighter is the Mig-35 generation 4.5 fighter, they also only built around 15 of them because they are too expensive to bild and are mostly on sale to other countries.
it is on par to our F/A 18 Superhornet and f-15

They also have the Mig 1.44 which is a 5th generation fighter, however has no stealth technology with it and they have only built 1 so far due to cost. It's also ugly as shit (personal opinion)

The F-22 Raptor is by far the most advanced jet in the world, and would shoot 20 migs down before they even knew what hit them from 200 miles out. We have about 130 of these with more on the way not to mention the new F-35 which the only plane bale to bring it down is the F-22.

Ground

Tanks
Russia uses the T-90, the newest tank in their fleet. It is nothing more then a revamp of the T-72

We use the M1A2 which as you saw from the past wars obliterated T-72's and T-80's in Iraq.

Navy

This is the biggest joke of them all

Russia's navy is depleted and old. Their flagship Peter the Great was such a mess that it needed a major overhaul that it just recently finished. An admiral was quoted as saying "I don't know how she is floating". A fire almost took her down 5 years ago.

Russia has 1 aircraft carrier, that is it.

They use the Akula class II Sub, they are leasing these to India, and ar efine in their own respect, however 20 people just died on a brand new one last week from a ventilation problem. When compared to a US Sea Wolf class sub that can are the most deadly and silent in the world. We also have the brand new Virgnia class Sub which are brand new and most are info is still classified where we have 3-4 ships out already


United states has 11 super carriers, (more then the rest of the world combined) and about 15 more that are decomissioned and could be retrofitted and reactivated if needed.

In 2015 we have the new Ford class supercarrier to replace the Nimitz to handle the influx of F-35 striker fighters which are all stealth.


THe only thing that Russia has is nukes, thats it. Which they would never launch one and neither would we.

Like I said, their Military is old and absolete compared to us. However, that is not to say they can't rebuild it back up.

There are things that Russia has like a new torpedo that travels at unparrel speeds and a sea skimming missle which they "claim" can manuever arund the Phalanx.


Take pride how strong we are, it is nothing to be ashamed of.

You wouldn't think he would belittle the forces that are the REASON for Israel's ability to exist.

 

[Andrew2382]

I think its more like 1200km or about 900 miles, that puts Israel in the sphere but Poland is still about 500 miles out of range. If the reason is to defend from Iranian missiles, why aren't Turkey & Romania deploying anti missile systems?

It seems counter-factual to argue that the missile defense system is intended as a safe guard against Iranian missiles. I am sure it is intended to counter a potential Russian attack. If I were running the Russian Federation, my natural response would be to up the number of short and medium range ballistic missiles in order to make up for any “erosion” caused by the Polish defenses in the event that a Russian missile launch is warranted.

The new one can reach 1200 miles

 

[elvis]

lol and now we lost in Iraq?

God you are fucking hopeless

Guess the Surge had nothing to do with it right.

And if you want to get technical you fucking moron, the war itself. WE FUCKING DECIMATED IRAQ. The problems came with the after effects, god forbit we went to war with russia we wouldn't be redoing their government so we wouldn't be there like we are in Iraq.

In the actual War with Iraq of going in there it wasn't even close.

And once again we didn't lose in Iraq you fucking idiot.

We just handed over the infamous "Triangle of death" back to the Iraqis.

God, it's amazing how a Jewish person can be so against our actions when every country in the middle east wants to kill every one of you

He only supports our actions when they benefit Israel. And even then he hates us for restraining Israel from wiping out all her enemies.

 

[Andrew2382]

You wouldn't think he would belittle the forces that are the REASON for Israel's ability to exist.

No never,

David is a little cocksucker thats all.

I have never seen a Jewish person talk so much shit of the cuntry that is the only reason isreal still fucking exists.

Let's be honest.

I support Isreal, I am not Jewish

Bottom line though, This country would have a lot less problems if we didn't back Isreal, be nice if the Jews in this country like David showed a little appreciation towards it instead of thinkign we are trying to take over the world

 

[Andrew2382]

I think its more like 1200km or about 900 miles, that puts Israel in the sphere but Poland is still about 500 miles out of range. If the reason is to defend from Iranian missiles, why aren't Turkey & Romania deploying anti missile systems?

It seems counter-factual to argue that the missile defense system is intended as a safe guard against Iranian missiles. I am sure it is intended to counter a potential Russian attack. If I were running the Russian Federation, my natural response would be to up the number of short and medium range ballistic missiles in order to make up for any “erosion” caused by the Polish defenses in the event that a Russian missile launch is warranted.

Also, Turkey and Romania don't have the tech for it?

It is not that easy to shoot a missle down with another interceptor. I think the US hit ratio is like 50/50.

 

[Turboswede]

Thats a very good point, but here is where I find the flaw.

In the 60's-80's there were many scenarios that called for full blown nuclear destruction. However, the problem with that today is it is a global community, destroying a country like Russia and/or the USA would bring down a depression which the world has never seen and might not recover.

As much as we hate it, all industrialized countries are dependent on each other now.

Thats why we will never go nuclear unless terrorism gets involved

I would agree with that but for the expanded development of tactical nuclear weapons in Russia throughout the 00’s and the expanded role for tactical nuclear weapons implimented under the Bush administration.

The argument that a global war cannot occur because of globalization is an argument I frequently get from the left as a rational for reducing defense spending. Assuming that a “hot” war were to develop between Russia and NATO would require that the global economic interdependency would have already been eliminated. I am sure that long before a shooting war starts in Europe, the western nations will have already taken steps to isolate Russia from the global economy.

I don’t think NATO or Russian strategists ever considered a full blown nuclear attack from the beginning of hostilities. US plans called for tactical nukes to be used against (Soviet) troop formations as it is unlikely the Soviets would have retaliated with strikes on US strategic forces. Russian strikes would then target western European port facilities to prevent their use by the US.

It is extremely unlikely that we would cross the line of nuclear annihilation in one leap, we would probably just crawl over it slowly.

 

[Turboswede]

Also, Turkey and Romania don't have the tech for it?

It is not that easy to shoot a missle down with another interceptor. I think the US hit ratio is like 50/50.

True, I don't know enough of the specifics regarding the Polish system.

 

[Andrew2382]

I would agree with that but for the expanded development of tactical nuclear weapons in Russia throughout the 00’s and the expanded role for tactical nuclear weapons implimented under the Bush administration.

The argument that a global war cannot occur because of globalization is an argument I frequently get from the left as a rational for reducing defense spending. Assuming that a “hot” war were to develop between Russia and NATO would require that the global economic interdependency would have already been eliminated. I am sure that long before a shooting war starts in Europe, the western nations will have already taken steps to isolate Russia from the global economy.

I don’t think NATO or Russian strategists ever considered a full blown nuclear attack from the beginning of hostilities. US plans called for tactical nukes to be used against (Soviet) troop formations as it is unlikely the Soviets would have retaliated with strikes on US strategic forces. Russian strikes would then target western European port facilities to prevent their use by the US.

It is extremely unlikely that we would cross the line of nuclear annihilation in one leap, we would probably just crawl over it slowly.

I would agree

 

[Tech_Esq]

This is a case of provocation if there was one. The entire idea behind this missile system is to protect Poland from.... Iran? Iran doesn't have any technology that could reach Israel. Why the hell do you intend to build a massive anti-missile system in Poland when Iran can't reach Poland?

So, if I understand you, you are saying that Iran is not working on advanced missile systems that could reach Europe, so a missile shield for Europe is not needed, is that about right?

Iranian Space Program

Unfortunately, that just isn't so. Iran is planning to have a man in space in 10 years. A little forward thinking an planning is always useful, so if we can beat their range by a year or two that will be good.

 

[Andrew2382]

So, if I understand you, you are saying that Iran is not working on advanced missile systems that could reach Europe, so a missile shield for Europe is not needed, is that about right?

Iranian Space Program

Unfortunately, that just isn't so. Iran is planning to have a man in space in 10 years. A little forward thinking an planning is always useful, so if we can beat their range by a year or two that will be good.

Tech, it's no use

David is one of these morons who is reactive and not proactive.

A missle shield will only be needed once Isreal gets nuked or once Iran has ICBM's.

God forbid we start planning early to prevent these terrible things from happening.

We aren't putting offensive missles at these sites, they are interceptors.

 

[DavidS]

So, if I understand you, you are saying that Iran is not working on advanced missile systems that could reach Europe, so a missile shield for Europe is not needed, is that about right?

Iranian Space Program

Unfortunately, that just isn't so. Iran is planning to have a man in space in 10 years. A little forward thinking an planning is always useful, so if we can beat their range by a year or two that will be good.

Forward thinking? Can you name the last time Iran threatened Poland? Oh, just in case they threaten Poland, I get it.

If we're doing forward thinking, why don't we just give Taiwan an anti-missile system?

 

[Turboswede]

I also want to make clear that I do not think the US should cower to bullies or appease expansionist powers. I feel that as the heir of the Pax Britannica it is important that we promote a stable (and pro western) international community.

The main problem I have with this specific example of saber rattling is that the issue is only of nominal importance to the US as an issue of foreign policy while it is very significant to the Russians. I feel that this missile defense system has less to do with security than with defense contracts and that’s why I would oppose it.

The US needs all the political capital we can get against the Russians and it seems a shame to waste it on something this trivial.

 

[Andrew2382]

Because we already have a strog military force in that part of the world?

Maybe?

We have a good chunk of our navy in those waters that have the tech to destroy missles aimed at Taiwan

Iran doesn't threaten Poland, they threaten US intrests and allies.

Poland is an ally

 

[Tech_Esq]

So, you would be fine then with a Russian designed, built and supported missile defense system being installed in Cuba, Mexico or Venezuela, right?

Certainly, why not? But, I really don't think it's analogous to the Russians. Their nuclear triad is no where near the strength of ours. The depend far too much on the land based missile systems. (and they know it). That and their traditional Russian xenophobia, is why they are throwing a fit like a two year old.

 

[DavidS]

Tech, it's no use

David is one of these morons who is reactive and not proactive.

A missle shield will only be needed once Isreal gets nuked or once Iran has ICBM's.

God forbid we start planning early to prevent these terrible things from happening.

We aren't putting offensive missles at these sites, they are interceptors.

You are such a little pussy. Iran doesn't have the technology to reach Israel. It's missile tests earlier this year were a complete fabrication of re-used footage and shoddy video-editing.

Everyone knows that we're deliberately trying to antagonize Russia. What happens when you antagonize Russia?

tehran times : Chavez boasts nuclear cooperation with Russia
AFP: Putin says Russia should act to influence oil prices
Russia: Missiles depend on U.S. -- chicagotribune.com

If we want to antagonize Russia - we've done a good job.

 

[DavidS]

Because we already have a strog military force in that part of the world?

Maybe?

We have a good chunk of our navy in those waters that have the tech to destroy missles aimed at Taiwan

Iran doesn't threaten Poland, they threaten US intrests and allies.

Poland is an ally

So is Australia. Are we now thinking of putting up anti-missile systems in Australia?

You can't even phathom that we might be doing something wrong. America is perfect in your eyes, huh? People like you are dangerous to this country. You're probably one of the 24% who think Bush is doing a swell job.

 

[DavidS]

I also want to make clear that I do not think the US should cower to bullies or appease expansionist powers. I feel that as the heir of the Pax Britannica it is important that we promote a stable (and pro western) international community.

The main problem I have with this specific example of saber rattling is that the issue is only of nominal importance to the US as an issue of foreign policy while it is very significant to the Russians. I feel that this missile defense system has less to do with security than with defense contracts and that’s why I would oppose it.

The US needs all the political capital we can get against the Russians and it seems a shame to waste it on something this trivial.

Do you believe that when Georgia went in to re-take South Ossetia, that Russia was wrong to invade Georgia?

 

[Ravi]

Russia has already backed down kids.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I also want to make clear that I do not think the US should cower to bullies or appease expansionist powers. I feel that as the heir of the Pax Britannica it is important that we promote a stable (and pro western) international community.

The main problem I have with this specific example of saber rattling is that the issue is only of nominal importance to the US as an issue of foreign policy while it is very significant to the Russians. I feel that this missile defense system has less to do with security than with defense contracts and that’s why I would oppose it.

The US needs all the political capital we can get against the Russians and it seems a shame to waste it on something this trivial.

As a counter point, the Russians only understand strength. Negotiating with them from a position of equality or weakness is a sure path to getting your ass handed to you.

Our major diplomatic victories with Russia have all come when we had an advantage over them we were willing to bargain away. When we put Intermediate Range Nukes in Europe, they really had a problem with it. But, as a result we got a treaty to ban an entire class of nuclear weapons.

When we had weakness, we got SALT II. Even the Senate wouldn't approve that piece of crap.