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

[BlackAsCoal]

Don't put words in my mouth, Willow. 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? Doing this is provoking Russia, which doesn't need to be provoked. So yes, this is the US being bad. I love my country, but the First Amendment gives me the right to criticize this country when she's wrong. And it is not unpatriotic to criticize my country at all. The United States is clearly provoking Russia in this case.

This is absolutely correct .. so ..

We are at war in Iraq .. at war in Afghanistan .. bombing and invading Pakistan while killing its people .. invading Syria .. threatening Iran .. AND provoking Russia ... all while we're going broke and borrowing money from China to support this.

Amazing

 

[Andrew2382]

ahhhhhhhhhhh 1980 build t-80's are coming to invade us.

Russia military= now what it's cracked up to be

 

[DavidS]

ahhhhhhhhhhh 1980 build t-80's are coming to invade us.

Russia military= now what it's cracked up to be

They obliterated Georgia's military which was being trained by US and Israeli soldiers.

That and Russia already has the T-95 super tank built and ready to be deployed into service.

 

[Turboswede]

The bigger picture is that many Latin American countries have turned Socialist.

I would argue the opposite, other than Venezuela, Latin socialism died with the elections in Nicaragua. Peru has been fighting a war against socialist terrorists as long as I can remember, Chile’s economic and political system was designed by Milton Freedman and both Brazil and Argentina sway from the center to the far right of the political spectrum.

They're teaming up with Iran and Russia who are our enemies. I wonder if they think they can take us from the southern border if they work as one force? Our politicians keep selling our Sovereignty to the highest bidders. The U.S. will no longer be able to stand on her own two feet because she is financially broke. We borrow money from China and other foreign countries to run the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and prop up the National Budget.

 

[Turboswede]

Tell DavidS we should stop "defending" Israel and see how well he takes it. But of course THAT is different.

The only way a missile DEFENSE system is a threat is if the Russians intended to use missiles to blackmail or attack Poland or Europe. Defense units are not offensive they can not be used to attack anyone, all they do is shoot down INCOMING missiles. If Russia has no intent to shoot any missiles how is it a threat to them?

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

 

[Turboswede]

ahhhhhhhhhhh 1980 build t-80's are coming to invade us.

Russia military= now what it's cracked up to be

It’s not the T-80s (or more accurately T-90’s and Black Eagles) that I am worried about:

As of June 2008, the Russian strategic forces included 667 strategic delivery platforms, which can carry up to 3070 nuclear warheads. The Strategic Rocket Forces have 415 operational missile systems of four types that can carry 1575 warheads. The strategic fleet includes 14 strategic missile submarines. Their 173 missiles can carry 611 nuclear warheads. Strategic aviation bomber force consists of 79 bombers that can carry up to 884 long-range cruise missiles. In October 2008 the space-based tier of the early warning system included four satellites that appear operational--two on highly elliptical orbits and two on a geostationary orbit.

To put it another way, with a 50% failure rate, Russia could still wipe out every city with a population over 10,000 in the western hemisphere. Just because the cold war is over doesn’t meet that the Russians can’t still destroy civilization as we know it.

 

[Andrew2382]

They obliterated Georgia's military which was being trained by US and Israeli soldiers.

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 ******* get it.

Yes, Russia military is a ******* 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.

 

[Andrew2382]

It’s not the T-80s (or more accurately T-90’s and Black Eagles) that I am worried about:

As of June 2008, the Russian strategic forces included 667 strategic delivery platforms, which can carry up to 3070 nuclear warheads. The Strategic Rocket Forces have 415 operational missile systems of four types that can carry 1575 warheads. The strategic fleet includes 14 strategic missile submarines. Their 173 missiles can carry 611 nuclear warheads. Strategic aviation bomber force consists of 79 bombers that can carry up to 884 long-range cruise missiles. In October 2008 the space-based tier of the early warning system included four satellites that appear operational--two on highly elliptical orbits and two on a geostationary orbit.

To put it another way, with a 50% failure rate, Russia could still wipe out every city with a population over 10,000 in the western hemisphere. Just because the cold war is over doesn’t meet that the Russians can’t still destroy civilization as we know it.

Turbo thats fine,

but dude it would never come down to that

MAD
Mutally Assured Destruction

We could take out the world just as much and with more accuracy then they can.

The only way this war blows up from Nukes is if terrorists get their hands on them, not from industralized contries going to war with each other. There will always be a limit.

 

[Turboswede]

It's always the US who is bad huh David?

I don’t think we are bad, I just think the administration is being stupid (again) and shortsighted (again) in antagonizing the Russians over an issue that’s trivial for the US but extremely important to the Russians.

 

[DavidS]

Tell DavidS we should stop "defending" Israel and see how well he takes it. But of course THAT is different.

The only way a missile DEFENSE system is a threat is if the Russians intended to use missiles to blackmail or attack Poland or Europe. Defense units are not offensive they can not be used to attack anyone, all they do is shoot down INCOMING missiles. If Russia has no intent to shoot any missiles how is it a threat to them?

So then you wouldn't have any problem with Russia building an anti-missile system in Cuba?

No one seems to be answering my question. Why is the US building an anti-missile system in Poland to defend against Iranian missiles when Iran doesn't have any missiles that could reach Poland?

I'll give you the answer. Because the US *isn't* putting just an anti-missile system in Poland to defend against Iran. They're putting it there as a direct challenge to Russia. They're antagonizing Russia.

 

[Andrew2382]

So then you wouldn't have any problem with Russia building an anti-missile system in Cuba?

No one seems to be answering my question. Why is the US building an anti-missile system in Poland to defend against Iranian missiles when Iran doesn't have any missiles that could reach Poland?

I'll give you the answer. Because the US *isn't* putting just an anti-missile system in Poland to defend against Iran. They're putting it there as a direct challenge to Russia. They're antagonizing Russia.

It's not meant to defend poland you idiot. It is meant to defend and American Ally or INTREST in the region.

Not just poland.

 

[DavidS]

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

So, why did we get our asses kicked in Iraq again? Why are 4500 soldiers dead again?

We didn't win in Iraq because of a couple of thousand extra soldiers. We won because we finally stopped using our guns and started using our brains. We sat down and negotiated with the terrorists who were killing our soldiers.

 

[Andrew2382]

lol and now we lost in Iraq?

God you are ******* hopeless

Guess the Surge had nothing to do with it right.

And if you want to get technical you ******* moron, the war itself. WE ******* 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 ******* 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

 

[DavidS]

It's not meant to defend poland you idiot. It is meant to defend and American Ally or INTREST in the region.

Not just poland.

Uh, ok. You're not helping your argument any.

This is Europe.

This is the middle east

Do you see that blue area that says "IRAN" move your eyes to the left some to that little tiny country in purple in between Egypt and Jordan. It's called Israel. Iran doesn't have any technology currently that can reach Israel.

Now above Israel you'll see Turkey. If you look on the Europe map you'll see Turkey. Then if you keep moving your eyes up you'll see Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary...

If Iran can't reach Israel, it certainly can't reach Turkey.

If Iran can't reach Turkey, why are we putting a missile defense system in Poland?

If we were putting a MDS in Turkey, this would make more sense. But uh, yeah... Iran is REALLY far away from Europe.

And by the way, Israel has its own missile defense system. Next guess please?

 

[DavidS]

lol and now we lost in Iraq?

4500 dead soldiers, $600 billion and over a million dead Iraqis. Sure, the fighting's stopped now, but we won?

To quote John McCain: You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

 

[Turboswede]

Turbo thats fine,

but dude it would never come down to that

MAD
Mutally Assured Destruction

We could take out the world just as much and with more accuracy then they can.

The only way this war blows up from Nukes is if terrorists get their hands on them, not from industrialized countries going to war with each other. There will always be a limit.

I am not so sure of that, through the 70’s and 80’s we were not a match (at least quantitatively) for the Soviets so NATO planners had always expected a general war in Europe to go nuclear within the first 72 hours. It was the only card we had to play if the Soviets came charging through the Fulda Gap.

It seems to me that Russian planning today would take a similar course considering how outmatched they are by the west in terms of conventional weapons. By deploying a missile shield we (NATO) are threatening to take away Russia’s only effective defense against an invasion from the West and that is a destabilizing move. In international brinksmanship there is always the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction but, by introducing a system to limit one side’s ability to effectively retaliate, there is an incentive to use weapons before they are rendered ineffective.

I know to the majority of Americans this isn’t seen a big deal as we all know there is no intention on the part of the US or Germany or Poland to invade Russia. Unfortunately (but understandably) the Russian experience of WW II is ever present in the Russian world view. Stalin was absolutely convinced that the Germans were close allies up to (and a little after) the initiation of Barbarossa.

 

[Andrew2382]

yes, you're a ******* reatrd.

Iran has developed the Shihab-3 Missile.

They can reach up to 1200 miles now!
Shahab-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The distance between Tabriz Iran, and Rzeszow, poland is 1400 miles. they could hit the south eastern tip of poland with this missle. They could also very easily hit (GASP) Isreal!

So stop with your nonsense they cant hit Isreal, yes they can hit Isreal.

European Missile Defense: Assessing Iran?s ICBM Capabilities | Arms Control Association

In 1999 and 2001, the National Intelligence Council stated that Iran could develop an ICBM capable of reaching the United States by 2015. In recent years, U.S. government agencies have affirmed those estimates, arguing that “Iran could have long-range missiles capable of reaching the U.S. and Europe before 2015” and that “proposed U.S. missile defense assets in Europe would defend the U.S. and much of Europe against long-range ballistic missile threats launched from the Middle East.”[1] Accordingly, Washington intends to build a missile defense system in Europe by around 2012.


Just because they can't hit the targets yet doesn't mean they aren't working on it.

Thats you being reactive instead of proactive, you want to respond when something happens. Well there are many that choose to plan to prevent it.

Please go down to the store and buy yourself a clue

 

[Turboswede]

Do you see that blue area that says "IRAN" move your eyes to the left some to that little tiny country in purple in between Egypt and Jordan. It's called Israel. Iran doesn't have any technology currently that can reach Israel.

I don’t disagree with the point of your post, but I do think Iran has delivery systems that could reach Israel, they would probably be ineffective, but they do exist. Given a medium yield (say 200kt) warhead the Shahab-3 could pose a substantial treat to Israel.

 

[Andrew2382]

I am not so sure of that, through the 70’s and 80’s we were not a match (at least quantitatively) for the Soviets so NATO planners had always expected a general war in Europe to go nuclear within the first 72 hours. It was the only card we had to play if the Soviets came charging through the Fulda Gap.

It seems to me that Russian planning today would take a similar course considering how outmatched they are by the west in terms of conventional weapons. By deploying a missile shield we (NATO) are threatening to take away Russia’s only effective defense against an invasion from the West and that is a destabilizing move. In international brinksmanship there is always the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction but, by introducing a system to limit one side’s ability to effectively retaliate, there is an incentive to use weapons before they are rendered ineffective.

I know to the majority of Americans this isn’t seen a big deal as we all know there is no intention on the part of the US or Germany or Poland to invade Russia. Unfortunately (but understandably) the Russian experience of WW II is ever present in the Russian world view. Stalin was absolutely convinced that the Germans were close allies up to (and a little after) the initiation of Barbarossa.

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

In the 60's-80's there were many scnearios 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 industralized countries are dependent on each other now.

Thats why we will never go nuclear unless terroism gets involved

 

[DavidS]

yes, you're a ******* reatrd.

Iran has developed the Shihab-3 Missile.

They can reach up to 1200 miles now!
Shahab-3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The distance between Tabriz Iran, and Rzeszow, poland is 1400 miles. they could hit the south eastern tip of poland with this missle. They could also very easily hit (GASP) Isreal!

So stop with your nonsense they cant hit Isreal, yes they can hit Isreal.

European Missile Defense: Assessing Iran?s ICBM Capabilities | Arms Control Association

In 1999 and 2001, the National Intelligence Council stated that Iran could develop an ICBM capable of reaching the United States by 2015. In recent years, U.S. government agencies have affirmed those estimates, arguing that “Iran could have long-range missiles capable of reaching the U.S. and Europe before 2015” and that “proposed U.S. missile defense assets in Europe would defend the U.S. and much of Europe against long-range ballistic missile threats launched from the Middle East.”[1] Accordingly, Washington intends to build a missile defense system in Europe by around 2012.


Just because they can't hit the targets yet doesn't mean they aren't working on it.

Thats you being reactive instead of proactive, you want to respond when something happens. Well there are many that choose to plan to prevent it.

Please go down to the store and buy yourself a clue

Great Prophet III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia