Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NATO warns US missile defense could divide allies

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Highseas,

    If any missile flies over China and Russia and they sit pretty, then there is something seriously wrong.

    Joining Point A to B does not justify any the hypothesis.

    What would be the time of flight from NK to Europe?


    "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

    HAKUNA MATATA

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Ray View Post
      Highseas,

      If any missile flies over China and Russia and they sit pretty, then there is something seriously wrong.
      I'm glad you noticed.

      Originally posted by Ray View Post
      Joining Point A to B does not justify any the hypothesis.
      That's how missiles fly, unless I'm mistaken. They go from point A to point B. Do you know about any missiles that just fly around in circles like they're waiting for a bus?

      The reason I put up the great circle routes is to let our members see the actual paths unaltered by flat map projections. We do live on a sphere, after all.
      Originally posted by Ray View Post
      What would be the time of flight from NK to Europe?
      The NorK threat to Europe, is the most difficult intercept. I also think it's the most unlikely of the scenarios. But if I had to guard against it, I would want my interceptors as far north as I could get. And I would want some help from Russia.

      Do you really want me to work up the numbers for that scenario?

      Will you believe me when I am done, or will you take it with a grain of salt like you seem to have done with my previous efforts?
      Last edited by highsea; 17 Mar 07,, 06:03.
      "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

      Comment


      • #33
        [QUOTE=highsea;356159]
        I'm glad you noticed.
        I did not know to notice that would require one to be a rocket scientist.

        While you look at the technical aspect, I observe from the military standpoint and the contention that it would overfly to nations without detection and concern is a bit over the cuckoo's nest.

        That's how missiles fly, unless I'm mistaken. They go from point A to point B. Do you know about any missiles that just fly around in circles like they're waiting for a bus?
        Not really.

        But if you wish to split the contention and make my statement look ridiculous then maybe you are right that one is waiting for the bus!

        I presume you think I am gullible and militarily stupid that I will swallow hook, line and sinker a diagram that indicates shooting a rocket over two militarily advanced nations by joining Point A to B is a feasible contention. Even the Marines would not believe this childish contention.

        The reason I put up the great circle routes is to let our members see the actual paths unaltered by flat map projections. We do live on a sphere, after all.
        That is so obvious.

        And I do read posts too. You have explained it earlier and my attention span is not that short nor is my retention power!


        The NorK threat to Europe, is the most difficult intercept. I also think it's the most unlikely of the scenarios. But if I had to guard against it, I would want my interceptors as far north as I could get. And I would want some help from Russia.
        Now that is news (the part marked in bold). I sure would like to get educated on that since I may have missed something there or something I do not know of! So, either way, it will be an education for me!

        Do you really want me to work up the numbers for that scenario?
        What scenarios?

        All I would feel obliged with is, if you kindly explain:

        1. How a missile can fly over two militarily advanced nations without detection, alarm and attempted interception.

        2. How come the NK to Europe route of a missile is difficult for detection and attempted interception.

        3. How come the Spy in the Sky Satellites of so many countries would miss out on detecting this missile.

        Will you believe me when I am done, or will you take it with a grain of salt like you seem to have done with my previous efforts?
        There will be nothing for me to believe or disbelieve. It will go into my memory to 'chew' at later date!

        Let me assure you that I do appreciate your explain the issue with diagrams etc since it makes things interesting, if not clear. Whether I agree or not is not the contention.

        At least your posts attempts to be of a serious nature and not the flippant variety that sometimes rankles!


        "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

        I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

        HAKUNA MATATA

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by highsea View Post
          This one is food for thought for my Russian friends (who might think it's a neat idea to help Iran with nuclear and missile tech).

          Tehran to Los Angeles. Distance 6599 NM.

          Please note the similarity to the above plot. Now if you were NORAD, what would you think??
          Does this mean that a possible retaliation strike from USA to Iran would go over Russia too? That doesn't sound good..

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            I did not know to notice that would require one to be a rocket scientist.

            While you look at the technical aspect, I observe from the military standpoint and the contention that it would overfly to nations without detection and concern is a bit over the cuckoo's nest.
            Good grief, Ray. Where did I say anything about any other nations ability to detect or have concern?

            I'm simply showing actual flight paths.

            A worst case scenario of Iranian or Pakistani nuclear missiles into Europe or the US isn't going to involve International permissions. Neither did the US and USSR spend their resources during the cold war on any such "Marquis of Queensbury Rules". Both sides planned for the worst case.
            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            Not really.

            But if you wish to split the contention and make my statement look ridiculous then maybe you are right that one is waiting for the bus!
            ??? That doesn't translate.

            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            I presume you think I am gullible and militarily stupid that I will swallow hook, line and sinker a diagram that indicates shooting a rocket over two militarily advanced nations by joining Point A to B is a feasible contention. Even the Marines would not believe this childish contention.
            Why would I think you are militarily stupid? As I explained, these plots are great circle routes. Do you recall Ruskiy's post about NorK missiles going over the pole to europe? Or the posts about how these proposed ABM sites are obviously directed at Russia? I'm just offering up a little geography here. You can take it or leave it as you see fit.

            Sir- do you have any missile that travel in other than straight lines? If one is to look at a potential adversary's missile routes, wouldn't you plot them the same way? It's the only way they fly, unless I am mistaken. Are you going to plot them in a bunch of wierd flight paths and ignore the obvious?
            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            That is so obvious.

            And I do read posts too. You have explained it earlier and my attention span is not that short nor is my retention power!
            Hmmm. Do you think my post was only for you? I'm sorry if I gave that impression.
            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            Now that is news (the part marked in bold). I sure would like to get educated on that since I may have missed something there or something I do not know of! So, either way, it will be an education for me!
            Lol. I was just saying from a geographical standpoint. Obviously there might be other assets like AEGIS ships in the Sea of Japan that are not accounted for in the European ABM calculus. I am trying to keep things simple, which they obviously are not. That is not intended to imply anything, just to focus on the topic of this thread.
            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            What scenarios?

            All I would feel obliged with is, if you kindly explain:

            1. How a missile can fly over two militarily advanced nations without detection, alarm and attempted interception.
            I don't necessarily think they can, but how confident are you in Russia's Early Warning Network? How about China's? Did I say they would be undetected? You seem be taking the European view that there is no such thing as an "Undeterable State".
            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            2. How come the NK to Europe route of a missile is difficult for detection and attempted interception.
            I should clarify that- It's more difficult if the radar is in Czech Republic- if the radar was in Russia, it would be a lot easier. Obviuosly you want to be as close to the launch point as possible- range issues.

            Again, using North Korea as a potential threat to Europe seems odd- it just doesn't pan out that way, and I would call it a very off chance scenario. I should say that I have never heard the US SD make that claim in any official capacity- I have only heard it here or from MSM sources. I would like to see the statement from an official US source that the ABM in Europe is intended to defend from NorK missiles.
            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            3. How come the Spy in the Sky Satellites of so many countries would miss out on detecting this missile.
            Not that I said no one would notice, but care to elaborate on this satellite network you are talking about? Which countries have the satellites, and how much confidence can be put in them? Do they have the capability to intercept our missile?
            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            There will be nothing for me to believe or disbelieve. It will go into my memory to 'chew' at later date!
            Please don't take my responses as flippant- I'm just trying to touch each point briefly. You do seem to have gone off a little on this for just a couple maps though.
            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            Let me assure you that I do appreciate your explain the issue with diagrams etc since it makes things interesting, if not clear. Whether I agree or not is not the contention.
            And likewise, Sir. By you asking the questions, it makes me question myself. And that's always useful.

            Originally posted by Ray View Post
            At least your posts attempts to be of a serious nature and not the flippant variety that sometimes rankles!
            Aw shucks, is that a compliment?....
            "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Proton View Post
              Does this mean that a possible retaliation strike from USA to Iran would go over Russia too? That doesn't sound good..
              I'd hate to be Russia in that exchange...
              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

              Comment


              • #37
                Nice pictures, but one minor thing is forgotten: nor Iran, nor N.Korea do not have such missiles that are able to execute these painted trajectories and approach the US territory. Not mentioning to achieve and hit any targets without reliable precision targeting. During the Gulf war Iraq SCUDs couldn't hit any purposes in Israel though it's much nearer than the US, so it's hardly to expect Iranian abilities are higher to Iraq's. Iraq launched its own satellite in 1986 with its own carrier rocket and what about Iran? Nothing similar. The technological level of Iran is very low, they definitely are not able to produce the ICBM.
                I'd say the explanation of ABM system as the against Iran and N.Korea seems like explanation to credulous idiots. To build the multi-billion system just to prevent threats that even don't exist at the moment and it's unknown when they can appear - looks like pretty stupid thing. It would be more effectively and reliable to strike the Iranian missiles' launch pads (that do not exist yet) with conventional air forces and to destroy the threats (the hypothetical still) in a source. Especially keeping in mind a lot of US military bases nearby to Iran - in Saudi Arabia, in Iraq, Turkey. The US is going to spend for their ABM more money than GDP of both Iran and.N Korea. Looks like a joke.
                Besides, noone can guarantee the AMB system won't be used against Russia. If the US wants to solve the Iran problem at expense of destroying of world security system - this is their choice. But it shouldn't expect Russia seeing all this to do nothing.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Mr First- no one is claiming Iran has the capability today, only that they are working on it. (Iran just recently launched a sounding rocket, btw) The same goes for NorK- they're getting there.

                  As to your recommendation that the missile launch facilities just be bombed instead, well there's this little matter of International law....

                  How can an ABM system be used "against" Russia? Russia would have to fire her missiles first.
                  Last edited by highsea; 17 Mar 07,, 18:46.
                  "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                    Muslims don't plan to invade Europe. They tried. They failed.

                    This time they will subvert you from the inside. Already more people attend the Friday prayers in mosques in London than Sunday mass in churches. Before you know it, they will become a major voting bloc and start to influence your internal policies.

                    I just don't understand why the "progressives" in Europe dislikes christianity so much while simultaneously embracing islam, the more militaristic, more intolerant religion?
                    I doubt it. Highly. While it could happen, I think other scenarios are far more likely. Assimilation is, I think, more likely than many think. If the fundie nutjobs lose their hold on the young men, they may rapidly lose much of their influence.

                    Another possibility is that the Muslim population will simply never become large enough to effectively influence the gov't. Long term demographic extrapolations are notoriously inaccurate (Paul Ehrlich, anyone?), and without a significant increase in the proportion of Muslims in the population, the fundamentalists won't have a chance.

                    Another, rather scary scenario is that Islamicists do begin to significantly influence policy, and indigenous citizens start getting scared; I think at that point a backlash is at least as likely as a takeover. The extremist xenophobe demagogues are ready and waiting, and I think that long before the Islamicists gain the upper hand, demographically or politically, they will generate enough fear or hatred for said demagogues to gain similar support from the indigenous proletariat. After that it could get very, very ugly.
                    I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by highsea View Post
                      Mr First- no one is claiming Iran has the capability today, only that they are working on it. (Iran just recently launched a sounding rocket, btw) The same goes for NorK- they're getting there.

                      As to your recommendation that the missile launch facilities just be bombed instead, well there's this little matter of International law....

                      How can an ABM system be used "against" Russia? Russia would have to fire her missiles first.

                      Highseas,

                      You can't get moralistic when you want and damn it when you want!

                      I hope you get the drift? ;)


                      "Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

                      I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

                      HAKUNA MATATA

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by highsea View Post
                        Mr First- no one is claiming Iran has the capability today, only that they are working on it. (Iran just recently launched a sounding rocket, btw) The same goes for NorK- they're getting there.
                        What exactly could they launch? Most likely anyone of improvised and a bit modified of outdated Soviet or Chinese type's rocket. They simply don't have anything else.

                        Originally posted by highsea View Post
                        As to your recommendation that the missile launch facilities just be bombed instead, well there's this little matter of International law....
                        Are you talking about International law? That's really strange to hear such speeches from American side after Yugoslavia and Iraq...

                        Originally posted by highsea View Post
                        How can an ABM system be used "against" Russia? Russia would have to fire her missiles first.
                        Why - first? If Russia fires her missiles not first - this ABM system won't be used? Indeed? For what reason?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Actually, there is one very similar story when one country considered the another country's ABM-system as a threat. And this story is exactly about construction of radar.
                          That clearly shows that only twenty years ago the Americans didn't doubt that ABM system and radar can be "against" someone.

                          Krasnoyarsk radar

                          On July/August 1983 the United States revealed that it had detected a large early warning radar under construction at Abalakova in the Soviet Union. Although known in Russia as as the Yeniseysk-15 radar, since it was situated in the Yeneseysk region, it quickly became known to the world as "the Krasnoyarsk radar," after the nearby city with many military facilities. The facility, located on a river, included housing, rail lines and electrical power generators. Construction of the complex had apparently begun as early as 1978. This installation was roughly 800 kilometers from the nearest border and thus in violation of the ABM Treaty (which required that all such radars be located on a nation's periphery and oriented outward). The United States raised the issue of the Krasnoyarsk radar in the fall 1983 Standing Consultative Commission (SCC) session.

                          The United States and the Soviet Union conducted the third Review of the ABM Treaty as required at five-year intervals by the provisions of that Treaty. The Review was conducted from 24 August 1988 to 31 August 1988. During the Review, the United States emphasized the importance of Soviet violations of the ABM Treaty, which are a threat to the viability of the Treaty. Throughout the Review Conference, the Soviet Union gave no indication that it was prepared to correct the violations without linking their agreement to do so to unacceptable demands.

                          Specifically, the United States discussed with the Soviets its serious concern that the Soviet Union's deployment of a large phased-array radar near Krasnoyarsk constitutes a significant violation of a central element of the ABM Treaty. Such radars take years to build and are a key to providing a nation-wide defense -- which is prohibited by the Treaty. The Treaty's restrictions on the location, orientation, and functions of such radars are, thus, essential provisions of the Treaty. Hence, the Krasnoyarsk violation is very serious, particularly when it is recognized that the radar constitutes one of a network of such radars that have the inherent potential for attack assessment in support of ballistic missile defense.

                          In order for the Soviet Union to correct this violation, the Krasnoyarsk radar must be dismantled. The United States has been urging the Soviet Union for more than five years, both in the Standing Consultative Commission established by the Treaty and in other diplomatic channels, to correct this clear violation by dismantling the radar. During the Review, the U.S. outlined the specific Soviet actions necessary to correct this violation in a verifiable manner. The United States has also made clear that the continuing existence of the Krasnoyarsk radar makes it impossible to conclude any future arms agreements in the START or Defense and Space areas.

                          http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo.../yeniseysk.htm
                          Last edited by MrFirst; 17 Mar 07,, 21:48.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Highseas, You are getting a little flak just now for reasons I simply do not understand. Were you wicked to use graphics to clarify your message? Why was your message unwelcome? I see no harm in a nation preparing to defend itself from a perceived possible future threat as the systems take time to be manufactured, tested and installed then manned in the right locations. In the meantime countries which are unstable and anti-West will have been developing the rockets.I'm with you on this one
                            Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Mr First- So? The USSR was bound by the treaty.

                              That no longer applies. Russia has been upgrading her ABM system now, just as the US has. I haven't heard any complaints from the US recently.

                              ABM's are defensive in nature, and I don't subscribe to your upside-down logic that offense is defense and defense is offense.
                              "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Glyn- it's "shoot the messenger" syndrome.
                                "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X