The Great Missle Defence Plan

[MACDRIVE]

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2095534,00.html)

I don't get it. If Bush is so adamant about not allowing Iran to ever have a nuclear weapon, then why is he already planning on Iran having ICBM's?

Vladimir Putin on the other hand, is thinking the U.S. is planning a sneak attack from their back yard. If we wanted to attack Russia, wouldn't we just send the ICBM's over Alaska?

[takao]

the thing with the rocket defense shield is that if the bush adminsitration wanted to protect the US from rockets from iran placing defense measurements in poland, etc don't really make sense since it's not really close to being in the flight path

unless of course the actual plan involves "protection" against russia


i found it ridiculous that just a few years after the cold war has settled, because of stupid ideas (like this rocket shield which very likely wouldn't work anyways) it's started again because that's what this stupid thing is going to cause


edit: i just found an actual interview with putin from the german paper Spiegel talkign about the current issues:(in english)
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,486345,00.html
i have to read it too first

[MACDRIVE]

Another thing I can't figure out: if Putin says he has missiles that can penetrate any kind of missile defence shield, then what the hell is he worried about? :confused:

[edesignuk]

Another thing I can't figure out: if Putin says he has missiles that can penetrate any kind of missile defence shield, then what the hell is he worried about? :confused:I'm sure it's a matter of principle as anything else. Maybe they do have capabilities to counter any US missile attack, maybe it's all talk, who knows. Either way, i don't blame them in the slightest for being pissed off about the whole thing. Russia and the US have serious history, now the US want to pop this crap on their door step and claim it's intended for someone else. True or not, I wouldn't trust the US either.

[miloblithe]

The US track record on Eastern Europe gives Russia no reason to believe anything we say. We promised that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. Now NATO flies surveillance planes inches from Russian airspace in the Baltics and Ukraine is being considered for membership. The US has made it clear that we don't consider Russia to be worthy of any consideration. Russia is drawing a line in the sand because we've given them no choice.

[Swarmlord]

Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2095534,00.html)

I don't get it. If Bush is so adamant about not allowing Iran to ever have a nuclear weapon, then why is he already planning on Iran having ICBM's?

Vladimir Putin on the other hand, is thinking the U.S. is planning a sneak attack from their back yard. If we wanted to attack Russia, wouldn't we just send the ICBM's over Alaska?

It's called being prepared. We have to do everything to prevent Iran from obtaining or developing, but we have to anticipate the time when they will succeed.

Putin is just posturing. I know a lot of former Soviet bloc residents and not a one of them believes that the US wants to strike Russia pre-emtively.

[clevin]

wonder what they will say if Russia negotiate a missile defense shield on the border of mexico and claim to be prepared for, say, pakistan.

[miloblithe]

Putin is just posturing. I know a lot of former Soviet bloc residents and not a one of them believes that the US wants to strike Russia pre-emtively.

Former Soviet Bloc residents? By that phrasing, one would assume you don't mean Russians.

Most Russians I've ever met think the US actions in the former Soviet sphere are often dubious, at best. They were especially troubled by our messing with their "brothers" in Serbia (not that Yugoslavia was in the Soviet sphere for long).

[atszyman]

The defense shield is a bad idea in so many ways.

Last I heard it still has not had a wildly successful test that could hit a moving projectile and/or distinguish it from balloons (note to self, no more balloons for the kids).

Even a 100% successful shield would only trigger an arms race since you only need one more ICBM nuke than we have defense missiles in order to penetrate the shield. Anything less than 100% greatly favors the enemy and if one were to attack increases the odds of more damage since more missiles would be launched to thwart the shield. With no shield we'd probably only have to deal with a single ICBM should someone choose to attack, with the shield the likelihood of multiple ICBMs becomes higher as they try to thwart the defense shield.

[Swarmlord]

Former Soviet Bloc residents? By that phrasing, one would assume you don't mean Russians.

Most Russians I've ever met think the US actions in the former Soviet sphere are often dubious, at best. They were especially troubled by our messing with their "brothers" in Serbia (not that Yugoslavia was in the Soviet sphere for long).

Three Czechs, several Poles, and one Russian. They may not like some of the involvement of the West in areas like the former Yugoslavia, but they don't think that we'd initiate an attack on Russia itself either.

[adroit]

Question . . . Would it be so hard to build an ICBM system using stealth technology?

[Queso]

The shortest path between Iran and the United States is via Russia and over the North Pole. Therefore any missiles fired from Iran would be intercepted over Russian territory, wherever the launch site for the interceptors is located.

And you wonder why Putin is annoyed?

[miloblithe]

Three Czechs, several Poles, and one Russian. They may not like some of the involvement of the West in areas like the former Yugoslavia, but they don't think that we'd initiate an attack on Russia itself either.

One Russian isn't much of a survey. And you do realize that the Czechs and Poles have a different perspective on Russia than do Russians. Czechs are the ones hosting the missile system that Russia is opposed to, after all.

And saying that they don't think we'd initiate an attack on Russia itself is besides the point. Yes, probably most Russian's don't think that the US would do that. What Russians fear more is that the US will prey continually on what we percieve as Russian weakness and our status as the sole superpower to dictate world affairs. The idea that the US would have more influence in Ukraine than Russia is an anathma to most Russians. The idea that Russians in the "near abroad" are second class citizens and the US champions these countries' human rights while criticizing Russia is percieved as pure hypocracy in the pursuit of power.

[zimv20]

One Russian isn't much of a survey. And you do realize that the Czechs and Poles have a different perspective on Russia than do Russians. Czechs are the ones hosting the missile system that Russia is opposed to, after all.


from what i understand, the poles are to host the missiles, and the czechs are to host the guiding radar station.

still....

[miloblithe]

from what i understand, the poles are to host the missiles, and the czechs are to host the guiding radar station.

still....

Yeah, I didn't want to look up the specifics, so I went with "system", which I felt could refer to either part. :)

[Nickygoat]

Question . . . Would it be so hard to build an ICBM system using stealth technology?

Answer........Yes.

Stealth is only really useful for aircraft and ships, as it's designed to reflect low power radar.

Traditional ICBM detection relies on 2 things:

1) knowing where the sites are, although sub based systems negate this, and

2) the massive thermal flare given off when an ICBM launches. Nobody has been able to get around this yet.

NORAD maintains a worldwide monitoring system that checks for the signature heat pattern of an ICBM launch. It will also pick up things like explosions at oil refineries and such like.

I'm assuming BTW, that you meant stealth technology in the vein of the B-2. F-117 rather than trying to conceal an ICBM site as something else.

[adroit]

Answer........Yes.

Stealth is only really useful for aircraft and ships, as it's designed to reflect low power radar.

Traditional ICBM detection relies on 2 things:

1) knowing where the sites are, although sub based systems negate this, and

2) the massive thermal flare given off when an ICBM launches. Nobody has been able to get around this yet.

NORAD maintains a worldwide monitoring system that checks for the signature heat pattern of an ICBM launch. It will also pick up things like explosions at oil refineries and such like.

I'm assuming BTW, that you meant stealth technology in the vein of the B-2. F-117 rather than trying to conceal an ICBM site as something else.

Well actually I was referring to the war-head itself. I'm fairly familiar with the capabilities of stealth and NORAD but the demonstrations of the missile shield have raised the question for me.

All the illustrations I've seen about how the missile defence shield works show a secondary weapon intercepting the ICBM warhead as it flies through the edge of space towards its target. The illustration showed the interceptor using radar to pinpoint the flying warhead's location and path so that it can move itself into the flight path and collide with it.

If the warhead were designed to evade radar detection, it would be able to hide itself from the interceptor. Am I wrong?

[Nickygoat]

Well actually I was referring to the war-head itself. I'm fairly familiar with the capabilities of stealth and NORAD but the demonstrations of the missile shield have raised the question for me.

All the illustrations I've seen about how the missile defence shield works show a secondary weapon intercepting the ICBM warhead as it flies through the edge of space towards its target. The illustration showed the interceptor using radar to pinpoint the flying warhead's location and path so that it can move itself into the flight path and collide with it.

If the warhead were designed to evade radar detection, it would be able to hide itself from the interceptor. Am I wrong?

Yes it could happen. At the mid range stage the missile is no longer under thrust and glides through it's trajectory.

The problem with this is that by the time it's reached that stage you'll have worked out it's flight path and velocity enabling interception.

Making it maneuverable would entail putting another rocket motor into it - increasing weight and complexity, and more importantly giving another thermal target to aim for.

Theoretically it's possible though.

Practically? No idea

[Ugg]

Three Czechs, several Poles, and one Russian. They may not like some of the involvement of the West in areas like the former Yugoslavia, but they don't think that we'd initiate an attack on Russia itself either.

What? Poles and Czechs not happy with our involvement in the Balkans? I find that very hard to believe. Had we not gotten involved, the war would have been on their doorstep very quickly. They may not have been happy with how it progressed but not with our involvement.

Serbia has long been under the influence of Russia, so it's not hard to believe that a Russian would have a problem but not someone from eastern Europe.

[Queso]

What? Poles and Czechs not happy with our involvement in the Balkans? I find that very hard to believe. Had we not gotten involved, the war would have been on their doorstep very quickly. They may not have been happy with how it progressed but not with our involvement.
No way would that have happened. It was a fight for territory as Yugoslavia fell apart. Notice how the war didn't spread into Hungary or any other of the neighbouring countries.

Saying that, had it done so, the Hungarian military would have wiped the floor with both the Serbs and the Croats. There was absolutely no threat to the Czechs nor the Poles.

[takao]

Saying that, had it done so, the Hungarian military would have wiped the floor with both the Serbs and the Croats. There was absolutely no threat to the Czechs nor the Poles.

on the other side i'm not so confident that the austrian army could have wiped the floor with anybody armed with more than blunt weapons ;)


in reality though you were able to see/hear the impact of the grenades on the other side of the border and still had their second biggest troop movement in history after hungary 1956

[edesignuk]

Kudos to Putin for turning the tables on Bush and offering him the choice of putting the defence system on Russian soil. I mean, if it really isn't ever intended for use against them then what's the problem, right Bushy boy?

[FFTT]

If Iran were to attack anyone in some sort of insane holy war,
they would be targeting Israel and maybe the Vatican.

It's all cowpie rhetoric anyway.

This administration thrives of keeping things stirred up.

They must have a perceived enemy to keep the funding going.

If Congress shuts down funding for the war in Iraq, the Neocons don't want to see their gravy train disappear.

I doubt the interceptors work very well anyway.

It's all an excuse to squander more taxpayer dollars.

[Peterkro]

Answer........Yes.

Stealth is only really useful for aircraft and ships, as it's designed to reflect low power radar.

Traditional ICBM detection relies on 2 things:

1) knowing where the sites are, although sub based systems negate this, and

2) the massive thermal flare given off when an ICBM launches. Nobody has been able to get around this yet.

NORAD maintains a worldwide monitoring system that checks for the signature heat pattern of an ICBM launch. It will also pick up things like explosions at oil refineries and such like.

I'm assuming BTW, that you meant stealth technology in the vein of the B-2. F-117 rather than trying to conceal an ICBM site as something else.

Norad can also pick up the moon which lead to the US scrambling bombers and coming close to provoking a Soviet response when operators got a little confused in the sixties.

[GroundLoop]

Last I heard it still has not had a wildly successful test that could hit a moving projectile and/or distinguish it from balloons (note to self, no more balloons for the kids).

I doubt the interceptors work very well anyway.

It's all an excuse to squander more taxpayer dollars.

Just an FYI. THere have been many missile defense successes. Especially in sea-based ballistic missile defense.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Successful_Intercept_Claimed_In_US_Missile_Defense_Test_999.html

Hickman

[FFTT]

I think this has more to do with Russia's recent trade practices with certain
entities and is perhaps meant as a warning about taking things too far
with their authoritarian regime.

Or it's all carefully orchestrated to divert our attention away from the
failings of this administration.

This War ( funding ) President doesn't seem to know when to quit.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Bush will go down in history as capitalistic fascist special interest corporate puppet draft dodger & Putin will go down as taking democratic Russia back to near communism.. Both suck turds.

[skunk]

Bush will go down in history as capitalistic fascist special interest corporate puppet draft dodger & Putin will go down as taking democratic Russia back to near communism.. Both suck turds.As usual, DHM, your analysis is hard to fault. :)

[mactastic]

Bush will go down in history as capitalistic fascist special interest corporate puppet draft dodger & Putin will go down as taking democratic Russia back to near communism.. Both suck turds.
Stop beating around the Bush (pun intended) and tell us how you REALLY feel!

[FFTT]

Putin may be tough on dissent, but wait for the next guy who's
a real tough cookie tied closely to Russia's military hawks and of course the
KGB.

I'm so sick of appologizing for the way Bush and Co. have trashed our
reputation in the world.

He and Cheney need to be duck walked into prison.