UK not part of anti-missile defence plans

[Ray]

UK not part of anti-missile defence plans, US says

Mark Oliver
Friday February 23, 2007
Guardian Unlimited


The UK is interested in hosting part of Washington's contentious "son of Star Wars" missile interceptor system, Downing Street said today, only to have US officials respond by saying Britain is not currently part of its plans. If the UK did host a missile silo or radar site it would likely prompt considerable opposition from the anti-war movement, and might spark protests echoing those at RAF Greenham Common in the 1980s.

The prime minister's office confirmed today it had discussed the missile system with Washington. However, a senior US diplomat said the country was not as yet interested in placing it in Britain.

"As we go forward there may be opportunities for us to talk to other countries about their needs, but right now we are concentrating on the Czech Republic and on Poland as the primary sites where we would be looking for this," the US deputy chief of mission in London, David Johnson, told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.

The US Missile Defence Agency added that it had also not heard anything about involving the UK in the system.

Surveys had shown Poland was the best place for the interceptors and that the radar should be in the Czech Republic, the agency spokesman Rick Lehner said. No other site would be necessary.

"Those are the best locations, the ones that best meet the technical requirements of a missile defence system," he said.

Earlier this week, the prime ministers of the Czech Republic and Poland said they were "likely" to accept a formal request from the Pentagon to part-host the system.

This prompted condemnation from a Russian general who said it would wreck the post-cold war balance of power in Europe. Moscow is furious at the prospect of former Soviet states being involved in the defence shield so close to its borders.

Russia claims that it is the missile shield's intended target, rather than a "rogue state" such as Iran, as the US insists.

Following a report in today's Economist that the UK was in talks with the US, a Downing Street spokesman confirmed that discussions were at an "early stage".

The Economist said a new missile silo could be sited at an existing US military base in the UK, but not at RAF Fylingdales in Yorkshire, which already houses early-warning radar equipment used within the system.

Britain's decision in 2003 to upgrade facilities at Fylingdales to support the missile interceptor system sparked enormous controversy and was bitterly opposed by some Labour MPs.

The Downing Street spokesman said: "The objective of these conversations was to make sure that the UK is kept in consideration to be one of the locations for the system should the US press ahead.

"No party to these discussions has got as far as discussing the specifics. We are simply at the stage where we have decided we want to be part of the discussion."

Downing Street sought to play down parts of the Economist report, which claimed the prime minister, Tony Blair, had been "discreetly waging a campaign since last autumn to secure the missile-interceptor site for Britain". The No 10 spokesman said the article "goes too far" in its account of the stage of talks.

The spokesman did not comment on BBC reports suggesting that Mr Blair had raised the issue directly with the US president, George Bush, or that Mr Blair had charged his chief foreign affairs adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, with liaising with the US national security council about the missiles.

It is thought the Pentagon wants to site a radar station in the Czech Republic, which would work in tandem with a silo of 10 interceptor weapons in neighbouring Poland. The cost of a European-based system has been estimated at £810m.

The various reports give the impression that the UK is actively seeking a role, whereas the Czechs and Polish appear to have been courted by the US. While the prime ministers of the east European countries have signalled support for the plan, both have also expressed misgivings.

Reports have also claimed that the Pentagon wants the interceptor silo to be considered as US territory, something about which the Polish prime minister, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has said he is uneasy. Maintenance of the silo might require 500 US personnel.

Polls in both the Czech Republic and Poland reflect public unease; a recent poll showed that 53% of Poles opposed hosting such a base, while 34% were in favour. Since 2002, the US has built two missile interceptor sites in Alaska and California.

The system is supposed to work by firing missiles to shoot down enemy missiles targeting the territory of the United States or its allies.

UK not part of anti-missile defence plans, US says | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

It is extraordinary that UK is being left out of the loop because of domestic opposition while the Polish's misgivings are being given short shrift.

It could be that both UK and US have to be sensitive to public opinion since they are matured democracies while the East Europeans still can roughride their population based on the legacy of the past form.

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.

[highsea]

...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...

[Ray]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

Putin Proposes Anti-Missile Shield With EU, NATO

Missiles would be also located in support of the system as has been mentioned. One not only has to stop missiles but also respond. That aspect is being forgotten.

Further, it is believed that the Russian apprehension is that it will herald the GPALS or Global Protection Against Limited Nuclear Strikes.

It is, to the Russians, an 'unfriendly' act since it also changes the balance of power since it gives added advantage to the West.

[highsea]

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

This link is to the Wash Post Home Page. Am I expected to hunt their site to find the article that you are so cryptically referencing?

Putin Proposes Anti-Missile Shield With EU, NATO

Yes, in 2000 we offered to participate with Russia in ABM, but Putin rejected the modifications to the ABM treaty that were needed to proceed. IIRC, we have made similar offers since as well, but always rejected.

Unfortunately, the point you are trying to convey completely escapes me.

Missiles would be also located in support of the system as has been mentioned. One not only has to stop missiles but also respond. That aspect is being forgotten.

You need to be more specific in your response if you want me to reply. Which missiles, and where? As mentioned by whom? Are you implying that part of this plan to stage interceptors in Eastern Europe also includes positioning offensive missiles targeting Russia? If so, I would appreciate a link to support that assertion.

Further, it is believed that the Russian apprehension is that it will herald the GPALS or Global Protection Against Limited Nuclear Strikes.

It is, to the Russians, an 'unfriendly' act.

Is this your answer? Why don't the Russians come out and say so then?

I am trying to discuss the system as it is proposed, not some theoretical Global shield (which wouldn't be a bad thing, btw).

You stated that:

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.

I am trying to decypher your response, but you haven't addressed any of my points or provided me with a reason why you would make this very definitive comment.

How is the plan for the interceptors in Eastern Europe "aimed at Russia" again?

[Ray]

Surveys had shown Poland was the best place for the interceptors and that the radar should be in the Czech Republic

The first post says it.

Nothing cryptic.

How would the US feel if the ABM and allied support systems was placed by Russia (hypothetically speaking) in Cuba or say Mexico?

You tell me what is proposed. The news is generic.

As regards the home page, the news was of two days ago I think and so the page has changed.

[highsea]

The first post says it.

Nothing cryptic.

Yes, that is the best location to place the interceptors and EWR to defend against a missile originating in the mid-east. Not Russia, as I have already explained. Kinematically, it just doesn't work, and I'm quite sure that Russia is completely aware of this.

How would the US feel if the ABM and allied support systems was placed by Russia (hypothetically speaking) in Cuba?

Do defend Russia from attack from whom? It would be useless against an attack from the US.

You tell me what is proposed. The news is generic.

I am not the one asserting that additional missiles are proposed- that was you.

Missiles would be also located in support of the system as has been mentioned. One not only has to stop missiles but also respond. That aspect is being forgotten.

What is being proposed is 10 interceptor missiles in Poland, and an early warning radar in the Czech Republic.

As regards the home page, the news was of two days ago I think and so the page has changed.

So why post the link?

You still haven't said why you think the system is aimed at Russia. The "balance of power" argument is extremely weak, btw...

[Ray]

WARSAW, Jan 21 (Reuters) - Poland said on Sunday it was still in talks with the United States about the possibility of allowing it to base an anti-missile system on its soil, and had no comment on a report a final deal had been agreed upon.

Washington is investing $10 billion a year in developing the system, which would use rockets to shoot down hostile missiles.

Diplomats say Poland is considered one of the best potential locations for rocket batteries. The Czech government said on Saturday the United States had asked permission to build a radar base on its territory that would form part of the defense system.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N21393706.htm

Hope this indicates how the said US missile system in Europe is to operate.

[highsea]

Hope this indicates how the said US missile system in Europe is to operate.

And why the locations were chosen:

Diplomats say Poland is considered one of the best potential locations for rocket batteries. The Czech government said on Saturday the United States had asked permission to build a radar base on its territory that would form part of the defense system.

A U.S. State Department spokesman said basing missile defense assets in Europe would help protect allies and the United States from the evolving threat of ballistic missiles from the Middle East.

Dodging my questions?

[Ray]

[QUOTE]

Yes, that is the best location to place the interceptors and EWR to defend against a missile originating in the mid-east. Not Russia, as I have already explained. Kinematically, it just doesn't work, and I'm quite sure that Russia is completely aware of this.

So, the hostile missile would be stopped. And then what is to happen?

OK, I will spell it out, though it is rudimentary.

No country will sit pretty if it has been attacked. It will retaliate. If that is not the modus operandi i.e. retaliation that should follow, then are you suggesting that this is a Gandhian non violent ABM shield?

Therefore, the ABM is the preliminary stage. For retaliation, it will require missiles for the second strike so to say. Hence, the next stage is proliferate Europe with missiles and add to the ones already in situ.

Pray why the ABM is not being sited in the UK which wants it? Would the radar be less effective and the interceptors late. What would be the target of the Russian or Iranian missiles? Europe is too vague a target. Be specific and I will hazard an answer.

The ABM surely changes the balance of power and it is not so lame as you may conjecture.

Do defend Russia from attack from whom? It would be useless against an attack from the US.
I am not the one asserting that additional missiles are proposed- that was you.What is being proposed is 10 interceptor missiles in Poland, and an early warning radar in the Czech Republic.

Who do you think will attack Russia and under the order of who? It does not require even one guess!

Would appreciate a link for the contention that has been made in bold above.

So why post the link?

It has worked on my computer since I had the post, and so I thought it was OK. But while posting it here, I seem to have deleted it and so when I tried to find it, I found what you experienced. Ignore the link, please.

You still haven't said why you think the system is aimed at Russia. The "balance of power" argument is extremely weak, btw...

Answered above.

Do also answer on the US reaction to a Russian ABM in Mexico and Cuba (hypothetical).

You would find the answer.

Chavez importing AK 47 raises the US hackles and you wish to state that an ABM on Russia doorstep should not worry Russia?!

[highsea]

So, the hostile missile would be stopped. And then what is to happen?

OK, I will spell it out, though it is rudimentary.

No country will sit pretty if it has been attacked. It will retaliate. If that is not the modus operandi i.e. retaliation that should follow, then are you suggesting that this is a Gandhian non violent ABM shield?

Therefore, the ABM is the preliminary stage. For retaliation, it will require missiles for the second strike so to say. Hence, the next stage is proliferate Europe with missiles and add to the ones already in situ.

That is your own speculation (the part in bold). A counter strike against mid-east targets could be made from either US soil, USAF bombers, or SSBN's at sea- in all cases without expending additional resources to base new missiles in Europe. And NOWHERE can I find any legitimate discussion of placing new offensive missiles in Europe.

Therefore it is a Strawman Argument.

Pray why the ABM is not being sited in the UK which wants it? Would the radar be less effective and the interceptors late. What would be the target of the Russian or Iranian missiles? Europe is too vague a target. Be specific and I will hazard an answer.

Because the location is sub-optimal for an interception of a missile originating in the Mid-East. The objective is to intercept the missile before the warhead(s) separates from the body of the missile. Stationing the interceptors in the UK might be more effective if the threat was Russia, but too far away to be optimum against a Mid-East missile, which would already be on it's terminal trajectory by the time an intercept was possible. You want to get there at the mid-point of the trajectory, when interception is easiest.

Potential targets: Berlin, London, Paris, New York, Washington D.C. (to name a few)

The ABM surely changes the balance of power and it is not so lame as you may conjecture.

Bah. Russia has no military power over Europe. The balance of power was irrevocably shifted when the USSR imploded. Russia's only effective lever is oil and gas.

Putin is only building up the Russian nuclear arsenal as a symbolic show of strength. A weapon that can't be used is useless for anything but a deterrent, the the thousands of existing Russian missiles are quite effective for that purpose.

As I already mentioned, the Russian rhetoric is strictly playing to the home audience against the NATO bogeyman. This ABM system has no bearing on Russian military power in Europe.

Who do you think will attack Russia and under the order of who? It does not require even one guess!

You are intentionally obfuscating. How does an ABM base in Cuba protect Russia against US missiles?

Answer: It can't.

Would appreciate a link for the contention that has been made in bold above.

Here you go:

Russia has sharply criticized the project, which involves setting up about 10 missile interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic, both NATO members, as part of a larger system to guard Europe and the eastern U.S. from missiles launched in the Middle East.

The United States has repeatedly said the program is not directed toward Russia but at protecting the U.S. and its allies from threats in the Middle East and elsewhere.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack repeated that stance Thursday, adding that the U.S. has "offered to cooperate with Russia on missile defense."

Germany Nudges U.S. on Missile Defense

And as Condi Rice put it in a German news conference:

"we have had no less than 10 formal contacts with the Russians about the missile-defense deployment -- the prospective deployment...of interceptors in Poland and radar sites in the Czech Republic -- [and] these discussions have gone all the way to the level of minister of defense. I myself have discussed this with Russian officials several times in more informal settings. We've had briefings at the NATO-Russia Council."

She added that "Poland and the Czech Republic are independent countries that make their own decisions. And the government of Poland and the Czech Republic have decided to participate in missile defense. Secondly, these missiles defenses are for purposes having to do with post-9/11 threats.... Anyone who knows anything about this will tell you that there is no way that 10 interceptors in Poland and radar sites in the Czech Republic are a threat to Russia or that they are somehow going to diminish Russia's deterrent of thousands of warheads."

RADIO FREE EUROPE/ RADIO LIBERTY

Do also answer on the US reaction to a Russian ABM in Mexico and Cuba (hypothetical).

I answered this question in another thread, but I will repeat it here: Mexico and Cuba are sovereign countries, and while the US might not like it, there is not much we could do about it.

If nuclear missiles targeting the US were placed, it would be 1962 all over again. But radars and interceptors do not represent offensive capabilities.

Chavez importing AK 47 raises the US hackles and you wish to state that an ABM on Russia doorstep should not worry Russia?!

Those AK-47's will be hell on South America, and will kill a hell of a lot of innocent people.

[Ray]

[QUOTE]

That is your own speculation (the part in bold). A counter strike against mid-east targets could be made from either US soil, USAF bombers, or SSBN's at sea- in all cases without expending additional resources to base new missiles in Europe. And NOWHERE can I find any legitimate discussion of placing new offensive missiles in Europe.

Therefore it is a Strawman Argument.

When you look at a military issue, you look at the issue in all its ramifications. The weapon platforms you have suggested is true. But when planning for one defence (Russian point of view), are you suggesting that missile in Europe will not be considered/

Currently, Russia possibly can contest the present number of missiles in Europe. However, with an ABM, that capability gets curtailed! Thus, the balance of power question.

Are you suggesting that the ABM and the interceptors are incapable of containing Russian missiles targeting Europe? If they can, then again comes the balance of power! Are you suggesting that the ABM interceptors would not be effective against Russian missile before the warhead separates if positioned in Czech republic?

So hardly any Strawman pizazz!

Bah. Russia has no military power over Europe. The balance of power was irrevocably shifted when the USSR imploded. Russia's only effective lever is oil and gas.

Why? Have the Russian missiles been confiscated? Or their huge Army been disbanded?

In case they are so moribund then why worry about them?

And yet you worry!

Putin is only building up the Russian nuclear arsenal as a symbolic show of strength. A weapon that can't be used is useless for anything but a deterrent, the the thousands of existing Russian missiles are quite effective for that purpose.

Well that deterrent did work, didn't it?

And it is still working it seems since quite a few countries are not keen that the ABM be installed as planned
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/790964815

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder told the summit that important questions about the technical feasibility of the plan remained.

French President Jacques Chirac said the ABM treaty, which outlaws national missile defence, was a "pillar" of global security.
CNN.com - Bush: Missile shield fears 'allayed' - June 13, 2001

“If you say that your ABM system is not directed at us, our missiles are not aimed at you,” he said.
FT.com / World / Europe - Putin rails against US foreign policy

As I already mentioned, the Russian rhetoric is strictly playing to the home audience against the NATO bogeyman. This ABM system has no bearing on Russian military power in Europe.

Putin's logic as above applies.

You are intentionally obfuscating. How does an ABM base in Cuba protect Russia against US missiles?

Answer: It can't.

Now that is a real Strawman answer.

I said hypothetical.

And you obfuscate!

AK 47 scares the hell out of you. And obviously therefore you wish to dodge the ABM in Mexico or Cuba hypothetical example as to how US would react if these were there !

[QUOTE]

Here you go:And as Condi Rice put it in a German news conference:

I answered this question in another thread, but I will repeat it here: Mexico and Cuba are sovereign countries, and while the US might not like it, there is not much we could do about it.

True,

Cuba was a sovereign nation and yet when the Russian missiles were deployed there for "Cuba's sef defence", the US nearly brought the world down with a confrontation that could have triggered a nuclear war had better sense not prevailed on both sides!

And you say the US would sit smug if an ABM got deployed in Cuba or Mexico?

Wanting to have you cake and eat it too?

If nuclear missiles targeting the US were placed, it would be 1962 all over again. But radars and interceptors do not represent offensive capabilities.
Those AK-47's will be hell on South America, and will kill a hell of a lot of innocent people.

That's you way of looking at it.

Try sometimes to look at it from other's point of view too!

I saw a thread where Mr First spoke about the US going about the world at will under the label of "Democracy". Well, that is how they see it.

AK 47 maybe hell for South America.

How does it concern you? ;)

South America is not the USA.

Go answer this.

You scoffed at my stating that Russia was worried that the next step is GPALS since it is not in place, and yet you state that the ABM is for Iran's missile which is under development!

Tail you win and Heads I lose?

It 0250 hours here or 2:50 AM.

See you tomorrow!

Spoconoi nochi!
Спокойной ночи.

[highsea]

Currently, Russia possibly can contest the present number of missiles in Europe. However, with an ABM, that capability gets curtailed! Thus, the balance of power question.

Um, no. The 10 interceptors would be totally inefffective against hundreds of Russian missiles

Are you suggesting that the ABM and the interceptors are incapable of containing Russian missiles targeting Europe?

You're finally getting it!

If they can, then again comes the balance of power! Are you suggesting that the ABM interceptors would not be effective against Russian missile before the warhead separates if positioned in Czech republic?

Correct. Kinematically they would be performing a tail-chase against IRBM's from Western Russia.

So hardly any Strawman pizazz!

It's a strawman argument because you are postulating the placement of offensive missiles as part of the equation.

And yet you worry!

Who said I was worried?

Well that deterrent did work, didn't it?

And this ABM system doesn't alter that. 10 interceptors, Ray. 10.

Who the hell thinks that is going to stop a Russian nuclear attack, when every target has multiple warheads aimed at it?

Who is the one acting paranoid here?

Now that is a real Strawman answer.

I said hypothetical.

And you obfuscate!

I'm starting to think you don't know what Strawman Argument means.

I will be more precise: Your hypothetical scenario makes no sense, since a missile attack against Russia from US soil would take a polar trajectory. Therefore the interceptors in Cuba would have to perform a tail-chase, something that is kinematically impossible. Interceptors have to be stationed along the flight path to have a chance.

Hence my condensed answer in the previous post: Russian interceptors based in Cuba or Mexico would be unable protect Russia against a US missile strike.

AK 47 scares the hell out of you. And obviously therefore you wish to dodge the ABM in Mexico or Cuba hypothetical example as to how US would react if these were there !

I haven't dodged anything. I have answered your question fully.

100,000 AK-47's in South America is indeed a concern, since they will be landing in the hands of drug gangs, marxist rebels, kidnappers, etc.

Do you really think it "scares the hell out of me"? (hint: I live in
Seattle)

Cuba was a sovereign nation and yet when the Russian missiles were deployed there for "Cuba's sef defence", the US nearly brought the world down with a confrontation that could have triggered a nuclear war had better sense not prevailed on both sides!

Yeah, Cuba's self defense. Lol. Just like India's "peaceful nuclear detonations"... I'm not concerned with bogus semantics.

If Cuba needed nukes for self defense, why hasn't the US invaded these past 45 years since the missiles were removed?

And you say the US would sit smug if an ABM got deployed in Cuba or Mexico?

You didn't understand my answer? I'll repeat: If nuclear missiles targeting the US were placed, it would be 1962 all over again. But radars and interceptors do not represent offensive capabilities.

So far, all you have offered by way of argument is your claim that the US secretly plans to station offensive missiles in Europe alongside the ABM's. Unfortunately, you can't provide anything to back up your assertion. I have explained that the interceptors would not be effective against Russia, and that they would be effective for their stated purpose, and why that is.

You have tried to divert the discussion by inserting strawman arguments and hypothetical scenarios into the equation, but that doesn't cut it.

The purpose of the proposed ABM installation is as stated, and Putin's rhetoric is irrelevant to their actual capability.

[highsea]

You scoffed at my stating that Russia was worried that the next step is GPALS since it is not in place, and yet you state that the ABM is for Iran's missile which is under development!

Tail you win and Heads I lose?

Point taken.

It 0250 hours here or 2:50 AM.

See you tomorrow!

Spoconoi nochi!
Спокойной ночи.

Sleep well, Sir. :)

[Versus]

It is extraordinary that UK is being left out of the loop because of domestic opposition while the Polish's misgivings are being given short shrift.

It could be that both UK and US have to be sensitive to public opinion since they are matured democracies while the East Europeans still can roughride their population based on the legacy of the past form.

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.

Hmm, it seems to me that highsea has the point. Shahab-5 and Shahab-6 delivery systems (if they are operational) could be a great security risk for Europe.
Personally I think that any type of military confrontation between Russia and Europe has a little chance to happen, most of all cause it is pointless. Russia needs European money and Europe needs Russian energy. Although anything is possible, some sort of conflict looks highly unlikely to me.
But wild card is, and that is bigger threat, the fate of those 16 cruise missiles that Iran has. I mean they could be launched from almost any place, including ships, airplanes or trucks.

[Ray]

[QUOTE]

Um, no. The 10 interceptors would be totally inefffective against hundreds of Russian missiles
You're finally getting it!

If the ABM is ineffective, why set it up?

Since you are aware of the finer issues of the ABM workings, do explain as to why Poland is ideal for Interceptors and Czech Republic for radars?

Correct. Kinematically they would be performing a tail-chase against IRBM's from Western Russia.

Again, so that I might benefit from your deep knowledge of this ABM system, could you give the technical parameters? (Of course, now state that they are highly classified). If they are classified, highly or otherwise, you know of the technical parameters as much as I do.

Notwithstanding, when will the radars detect the launch of the hostile missile and when will the interceptor missile be effective (in time and distance)?

It's a strawman argument because you are postulating the placement of offensive missiles as part of the equation.

I am postulating of offensive missiles deployment because one just doesn't just merely stop a hostile missile and sit back and twiddle his thumb! If you are right that there is nothing like "peaceful nuclear explosion" or a technological verifier, then I presume things like "no first strike" and other homilies etc should also be twaddle. So should "the ABM for Iran" be!

Are these sophisticated radars signatured solely for missile having the Iranian signature? If so, how?

Is this ABM merely on a stand alone mode and has no linkage with the satellite detection capabilities? If it does have a interconnectivity, does the ABM not become a 'force multiplier'?

Who said I was worried?

Good for you.

Bully to Putin since he worries!

And this ABM system doesn't alter that. 10 interceptors, Ray. 10.

The ABM does alter the deterrence quotient! Putin think so, even if you don't.

Who the hell thinks that is going to stop a Russian nuclear attack, when every target has multiple warheads aimed at it?

Who is the one acting paranoid here?

It may not, but then it is 10 multiple warhead missile less!

The world is full of paranoia. Iraq is one example! ;) Afghanistan is not! In another thread this aspect has been explained.

I'm starting to think you don't know what Strawman Argument means.

You maybe right.

I am conversant with English. American is what I learn on this forum like Cluster**** etc!


Is it something like cat's paw?

straw man
n.
1. A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise.
2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated.
3. A bundle of straw made into the likeness of a man and often used as a scarecrow.

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

Now, which of the meaning are you implying from the above?

I will be more precise: Your hypothetical scenario makes no sense, since a missile attack against Russia from US soil would take a polar trajectory. Therefore the interceptors in Cuba would have to perform a tail-chase, something that is kinematically impossible. Interceptors have to be stationed along the flight path to have a chance.

The ABM is for the protection of Europe and not the US.

Likewise, my hypothetical example pertains to 'protection of Cuba and Mexico' and not Russia.

This is a Strawman that you have shoved in by suggesting that the missiles are Russia bound and not Cuba or Mexico vectored? Am I right in using it as an example for the word, Strawman?

Hence my condensed answer in the previous post: Russian interceptors based in Cuba or Mexico would be unable protect Russia against a US missile strike.
I haven't dodged anything. I have answered your question fully.

Never said it would.

Strawman argument.

100,000 AK-47's in South America is indeed a concern, since they will be landing in the hands of drug gangs, marxist rebels, kidnappers, etc.

And so?

How does it concern America?

How does it affect your home etc. What's bad about all these odd and sods operating in their country and in Latin America. Latin America is no colony of the US or is it? Soverign countries or so I believe! ;)
Do you really think it "scares the hell out of me"? (hint: I live in
Seattle)

Yeah, Cuba's self defense. Lol. Just like India's "peaceful nuclear detonations"... I'm not concerned with bogus semantics.

Neither is Russia concerned with bogus semantics like ABM is for Iran and rogue states! ;)

If Cuba needed nukes for self defense, why hasn't the US invaded these past 45 years since the missiles were removed?

You answer that.

They tried many a time to remove the regime.

You didn't understand my answer? I'll repeat: If nuclear missiles targeting the US were placed, it would be 1962 all over again. But radars and interceptors do not represent offensive capabilities.

Quote you Russia is not concerned with bogus semantics

So far, all you have offered by way of argument is your claim that the US secretly plans to station offensive missiles in Europe alongside the ABM's. Unfortunately, you can't provide anything to back up your assertion. I have explained that the interceptors would not be effective against Russia, and that they would be effective for their stated purpose, and why that is.

Semantics and pious platitudes!

You have tried to divert the discussion by inserting strawman arguments and hypothetical scenarios into the equation, but that doesn't cut it.

Ah so it is a Strawman? Good for you. Slowly understanding the meaning of the word. But then anything that does not appear suitable could be brushed aside as Strawman, what ho?

The purpose of the proposed ABM installation is as stated, and Putin's rhetoric is irrelevant to their actual capability.

Then why install it in Europe?

Let the interceptors be in Turkey (quicker reaction) and the radars in Greece.

But then I am sure you will explain why Poland and the Czech Republic are ideal.

Honestly, please do explain the technical parameters as also the conduct and operation of this ABM system. Whatever details I have is too elementary.