Poland demands US air defence system - Page 2

Blademaster · 11-24-2007, 01:58 AM

Just to show you that US contributed significantly to the weapons market. Fine if not by 3 times but at least they have a significant lead over other competitors.

Feanor · 11-25-2007, 17:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Just to show you that US contributed significantly to the weapons market. Fine if not by 3 times but at least they have a significant lead over other competitors.

For the time being. Russian weapon export have been growing for several years straight and don't seem to be in risk of decreasing. This is a destabilizing factor that has to be accounted for. In any event back to the original topic, why not have Poland operate the interceptor missiles. Poland is part of NATO.

dundonrl · 12-10-2007, 04:42 AM

why would a nation that literally has thousands of warheads on hundreds of missiles be worried about 10 or so interceptor missiles? Any fool can see that 10 interceptors will not even make a dent in a massive first strike, that the Soviet/Russian inventory was designed too do. It's only design(the interceptor) is too defend against either an accidental launch of a single missile or the launch of a rogue nation's very limited supply of missiles....

Feanor · 12-10-2007, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dundonrl

why would a nation that literally has thousands of warheads on hundreds of missiles be worried about 10 or so interceptor missiles? Any fool can see that 10 interceptors will not even make a dent in a massive first strike, that the Soviet/Russian inventory was designed too do. It's only design(the interceptor) is too defend against either an accidental launch of a single missile or the launch of a rogue nation's very limited supply of missiles....

There's a thread in the International Defense forum titled Putin's Answer to the Missile Shield. In it I posted an MDB article that basically explains the reason why Russia is having objections to the missile shield.

Dreadnought · 12-10-2007, 15:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Russia will be even less likely to agree to that. Which means more diplomatic difficulties. How would America feel if Russian air defence systems operated by Russia were deployed to Cuba?

Well lets look back at the Cuban missle crisis or Mig Alley during Korea.

Russian owned and operated missle systems and AA for Cuba.

Mig Alley Russians operated mig fighters for China although China brought them.

Feanor · 12-10-2007, 17:20 PM

Yes, yes and during the Korean War the VVS flew Manchuria and North Korea. But that was in the context of a global stand-off between two super power, and a polarized world. Right now the world is more or less multi-polar, or heading towards a multi-polar situation, with several nations emerging as potential future super powers. In the modern day context how would the U.S. feel about Russian PVO being deployed to Venezuela along with some air-superiority fighters? All for defensive purposes of course. Nothing to do with Russia geopolitical expansion into the region

Dreadnought · 12-11-2007, 13:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Yes, yes and during the Korean War the VVS flew Manchuria and North Korea. But that was in the context of a global stand-off between two super power, and a polarized world. Right now the world is more or less multi-polar, or heading towards a multi-polar situation, with several nations emerging as potential future super powers. In the modern day context how would the U.S. feel about Russian PVO being deployed to Venezuela along with some air-superiority fighters? All for defensive purposes of course. Nothing to do with Russia geopolitical expansion into the region

One. Well, That might be diffacult to do standing fact that Chavez failed in his dilussions in fact he was recently in an argument over pencil whipping the numbers he lost by with military commanders and demanding a rehashing so he didnt look like a fool for even trying politically.

Second. You have no air superiority fighters that could touch the USAF programs. And would probably be blockaded. Which for us would be pretty easy to do.

Third. Do you think the people of Venezuela would allow a station for such weapons knowing that they would be targeted as well. Especially after Chavez lost his quest for his legacy. They dont want confrontation, they want to live with rights and a better life and so fourth.

Fourth. You would probably push Georgia over the edge and end up with a missle shield program for your troubles on your doorstep again.

Feanor · 12-11-2007, 21:11 PM

It wouldn't be a military move, it would be a political one. And I'm not saying it should be done, I'm simply demonstrating why you shouldn't be surprised when Putin is a little upset about American troops deployed to Eastern Europe. And Georgia is already over the edge, with Saakashvili in power.

Dreadnought · 12-12-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

It wouldn't be a military move, it would be a political one. And I'm not saying it should be done, I'm simply demonstrating why you shouldn't be surprised when Putin is a little upset about American troops deployed to Eastern Europe. And Georgia is already over the edge, with Saakashvili in power.

You have to keep in mind one thing Feanor, America attempts to keep its neighbors happy and without conflict and offers aid and democracy to their people. Russia wants to rule its neighbors which it has through "other means" for how long? The U.S. would not allow such missles to be aimed at her by Chavez or anybody else that close to us. Castro was the "last" and yet they may have launched during 1963 but one thing was for sure. Russia would have suffered the very same launches by the U.S. and Cuba would have been sunk outright.

And we all know that for even attempting it Castro lost ties with an economic trade and aid that hasn't been able to be replaced by any other nation including his friends the Russians or Venezuela not matter how much the promise this and that.

His brother Raul may be a different story all together and perhaps maybe able to re-open old doors if you would.The ball is on his court for now. Time will tell how if wants to play or not.

Feanor · 12-12-2007, 17:14 PM

Well if we want to talk Cuba, I'm of the opinion that the economic blockade was actually beneficial to Cuba. They're one of the most successful Latin American countries.

Tin Man · 12-13-2007, 18:04 PM

If Poland wants Patriot etc, let them pay for it like everybody else. Russia is worried about the ABM shield not for what is is, but what it may become...

Ray · 12-20-2007, 14:09 PM

Quote:

BALUYEVSKY ESCALATES WAR OF WORDS OVER U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE

By Pavel Felgenhauer

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Last Saturday, December 15, at a press conference in Moscow, First Deputy Minister of Defense and Chief of the Russian General Staff General Yuri Baluyevsky, together with Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak, expressed frustration over U.S. plans to build missile-defense bases in the Czech Republic and Poland. Baluyevsky outlined the possibility of a nuclear war because of the U.S. missile-defense (MD) deployment. At the same time, Baluyevsky and Kislyak strongly defended Moscow's decision to abandon the Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) arms control treaty because of persistent Western provocations and double-dealing (Itar-Tass, RIA-Novosti, December 15).

Addressing a gathering of Russia's top brass in the Defense Ministry in November, President Vladimir Putin accused NATO of "flexing muscles" and "gathering military resources near our borders in violation of previous agreements" (see EDM, November 21). According to Putin, Russia abandoned the CFE on December 12 as "an adequate response measure."

The general, in turn, accused the West of "turning the CFE into an instrument for political gain that does not have anything in common with European security or arms control." Baluyevsky announced that Russia – no longer bound by CFE arms limitations – would now freely move troops and weapons, although he promised that there "will be no massive arms build up." His promise is meaningless, however, since there is no recognized definition of “massive.” The over 130,000-strong concentration of troops and heavy weapons gathered to fight in Chechnya in 2000 was never officially called “massive.” The much bigger Soviet force that invaded Afghanistan in the 1980s was officially called a “limited contingent.”

Baluyevsky and Kislyak stated that Russia might return to the CFE regime if the West meets Moscow’s demands, but this does not seem plausible. There is no military build up of any NATO military forces on any Russian border, or anywhere else in Europe. The pretext Putin and other Russian officials are using to abandon CFE is a self-imposed delusion.

In addition, Baluyevsky and Kislyak accused Washington of double-dealing and retracting previous concessions to allay Russian fears about MD deployment in Europe. He downplayed the threat from Iran, Washington’s rationale for the new MD installations. The Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar disclosed on November 27 that a new long-range ballistic missile has been developed. The Ashura missile has been apparently tested on November 20 and is reported to have a range of 2,000 kilometers, enough to hit targets in Europe. Baluyevsky said he believes the Iranians are bluffing, that there was no test and that the Pentagon's conformation of the Iranian report is erroneous. "We believe Iran does not pose any nuclear threat and the missile threat is exaggerated," Baluyevsky said. The Defense Ministry insists U.S. plans for MD deployments in the Czech Republic and Poland are aimed at Russia, not Iran (Itar-Tass, RIA-Novosti, December 15).

Baluyevsky cautioned that the Russian early warning system might mistake a U.S. ground-based interceptor (GBI) launched from Poland to hit an incoming Iranian missile for a U.S. nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile, since the GBI and Minuteman-3 ICBM look alike. The Russians might “automatically” launch a nuclear counterstrike, beginning an all-out nuclear war. Baluyevsky recalled the test launch of a U.S. four-stage Black Brant 12 missile from a civilian research rocket range on the Norwegian island of Andoya January 25, 1995, which caused a nuclear alarm in Moscow (www.mil.ru).

According to some reports, Russia nearly went into nuclear war mode, and President Boris Yeltsin's "nuclear briefcase" was activated to authorize a counterstrike. During the Cold War, other nuclear scares caused by false reports of pending U.S. missile attacks reportedly happened in Soviet Russia (AP, July 5, 1997; Stephen J. Cimbala, Russia and Armed Persuasion [2001], Chapter 3).

In 1995 Baluyevsky was chief of staff of the Russian forces in Tbilisi, Georgia. I was in Moscow and a close friend of the man who occupied Baluyevsky's present post, General Mikhail Kolesnikov. He told me at the time that there was no panic in the Defense Ministry and that the launch of a single missile could never trigger a nuclear counterstrike. Yeltsin was contacted primarily to test the nuclear briefcase "Cheget" system. Unlike the American nuclear “football,” the Russian counterpart does not contain missile launch codes per se, but is a secure conference communication system for the military to consult the president. By the time Yeltsin was reached on January 25, 1995, the alarm was already cancelled.

Kolesnikov told me that the Missile Attack Warning System (SPRN in Russian) had generated false alarms before, and no one took it too seriously. "The nuclear briefcase is a toy for politicians to play with,” he explained. “If nuclear war ever happens, it will never happen suddenly by mistake, but will be the end result of a long and profound military-political crisis. The military-political leaders of Russia will meet it in our designated positions, ready to confer and formulate attack directives to our nuclear forces," Kolesnikov said.

The SPRN system can clearly and quickly distinguish a GBI interceptor in-flight from an ICBM. Baluyevsky's nuclear-war-by-mistake narrative is a ludicrous, crude, and counterproductive piece of propaganda intended, apparently, to scare Poles, Czechs, and other Europeans. The Russian Defense Ministry surely could have devised something better than portraying its own military as nuclear-trigger-happy idiots.

BALUYEVSKY ESCALATES WAR OF WORDS OVER U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE - Eurasia Daily Monitor

Now, what?

What should be the compromise formula?

If no , compromise, then what will be the effect?

Feanor · 12-20-2007, 16:27 PM

Sounds opinionated and rather biased.

Dreadnought · 12-21-2007, 15:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feanor

Well if we want to talk Cuba, I'm of the opinion that the economic blockade was actually beneficial to Cuba. They're one of the most successful Latin American countries.

That is ofcoarse if you consider being under the rule of self appointed dictator fortunate.

Feanor · 12-21-2007, 16:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

That is ofcoarse if you consider being under the rule of self appointed dictator fortunate.

Self-appointed dictator, or corrupt semi-democracy (Mexico-style) whatever. Cuba has a notably higher standard of living, and in particular medical facilities, for the bulk of it's population, then most other Latin American countries. When it comes to the third world I'll first look at the shape the country's in, and then at who's running it.

12-13-2007, 18:04 PM	#26 (permalink)
Tin Man Contributor Join Date: 06-02-07 Location: In the `shires. Posts: 450 Country:	If Poland wants Patriot etc, let them pay for it like everybody else. Russia is worried about the ABM shield not for what is is, but what it may become... __________________ "Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
F-22, stuff you should know	Rusky	Military Aviation	275	09-21-2007 01:19 AM
Sino-Indian War	rkam98	South Asian Defense Topics	66	05-09-2007 00:16 AM
JSF vs Rafale vs EF-2000	indianguy4u	Military Aviation	7	08-29-2005 04:33 AM
Brigadier, Maruf's new BdA-InA tirade at CDF	Officer of Engineers	The Field Mess	34	08-24-2005 11:27 AM
IAF purchasing more and more.	ajaybhutani	South Asian Defense Topics	54	04-20-2005 09:05 AM

11-24-2007, 01:58 AM	#16 (permalink)
Blademaster Banished *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 08-15-03 Posts: 3,277	Just to show you that US contributed significantly to the weapons market. Fine if not by 3 times but at least they have a significant lead over other competitors.

12-10-2007, 04:42 AM	#18 (permalink)
dundonrl *Military Professional* Join Date: 03-23-07 Posts: 144	why would a nation that literally has thousands of warheads on hundreds of missiles be worried about 10 or so interceptor missiles? Any fool can see that 10 interceptors will not even make a dent in a massive first strike, that the Soviet/Russian inventory was designed too do. It's only design(the interceptor) is too defend against either an accidental launch of a single missile or the launch of a rogue nation's very limited supply of missiles....

12-10-2007, 17:20 PM	#21 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	Yes, yes and during the Korean War the VVS flew Manchuria and North Korea. But that was in the context of a global stand-off between two super power, and a polarized world. Right now the world is more or less multi-polar, or heading towards a multi-polar situation, with several nations emerging as potential future super powers. In the modern day context how would the U.S. feel about Russian PVO being deployed to Venezuela along with some air-superiority fighters? All for defensive purposes of course. Nothing to do with Russia geopolitical expansion into the region

12-11-2007, 21:11 PM	#23 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	It wouldn't be a military move, it would be a political one. And I'm not saying it should be done, I'm simply demonstrating why you shouldn't be surprised when Putin is a little upset about American troops deployed to Eastern Europe. And Georgia is already over the edge, with Saakashvili in power.

12-12-2007, 17:14 PM	#25 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	Well if we want to talk Cuba, I'm of the opinion that the economic blockade was actually beneficial to Cuba. They're one of the most successful Latin American countries.

12-20-2007, 16:27 PM	#28 (permalink)
Feanor Banished Join Date: 06-12-07 Location: San Jose, CA Posts: 2,385 Country:	Sounds opinionated and rather biased.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)