Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
...There is no doubt that Russia is correct that it is aimed at Russia and all the talk about it being because of Iran is balderdash.
|
Ray, what do you base that assumption upon?
Besides the obvious ability of Russia to simply overwhelm the system, an ICBM attack from Russia against the US would come across the pole, or from Siberia to the US West Coast, not across Europe and the Atlantic Ocean. Better to stage the interceptors in Canada (or the US/Canada border) if that was the case. An Interceptor from Eastern Europe would not be able to catch up to an ICBM from Central Russia aimed at the US on a polar trajectory.
Iran is known to be developing a missile capable of hitting Europe, and the location of the facilities is correct for that scenario. Which do you think has a higher probability? An attack against Europe by Russia, or a "rogue regime" in the ME? My money's on the Islamists.
Russian missiles targeting Europe would be intermediate range missiles, and would come from Western Russia. These interceptors would most likely have insufficient time to launch and intercept. If European defense against a Russian attack was the intent, it would be better to place THAAD/Patriot batteries in multiple locations throughout Europe. The kinematics of the ground based interceptors in Eastern Europe are not good for a Russia scenario. At the very least, you would want them in Western Europe, to allow more time to react.
Putin's rhetoric is not due to actual capabilities of the ABM system vis a vis Russia, but the political ramifications of NATO in Eastern Europe. He's playing to the home crowd...