StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid people
Login  FAQ    Search

View unanswered posts | View active topics


It is currently 2014-04-17 06:12pm (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics


Quote of the Week: "In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own." - Alexis de Tocqueville, French writer (1805-1859)

No missile shield in Eastern Europe

Moderators: SCRawl, Thanas, PeZook, D.Turtle, Edi, Stas Bush

Post new topic Post a reply  Page 3 of 5
 [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 03:14am 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
In the end, all the arguments against ABM boil down to two cases:

1. It won't work
2. It works, but is too destabilizing.
   Profile |  

Vympel
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 03:25am 

Spetsnaz


Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Posts: 28106
Location: Sydney Australia
MKSheppard wrote:

So I see he's a subhuman moron who doesn't understand the fact that we operate on a look-shoot-shoot-look system, ensuring kills even if an interceptor fails to malfunction. One of the "failed" ABM tests was because the interceptor hung up in it's silo -- which completely ruined the test.

In a true operational environment, the operators would have been expecting two missiles to be launched, and when only one went up; they'd go "aw damn it, a hung missile -- time to call the EOD guys to clear it".

Additionally he can't even comprehend the concept of virtual attrition -- which is kind of funny, considering how the Soviet Air and Missile defense system reduced the number of cities the British nuclear deterrent could destroy from 200 in the late 50s with the V-Bomber force, to just one city (moscow) with Polaris Chevaline.


This is gibberish. None of his statement has anything to do with what you said.
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 03:35am 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
Vympel wrote:
This is gibberish. None of his statement has anything to do with what you said.


I see the same old tired arguments raised against ABM -- "oh noes, it must have a 100% success rate, or else it was for nothing!"
   Profile |  

Stas Bush
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 03:54am 

Glamorous Commie


Joined: 2003-02-26 12:39pm
Posts: 16867
Location: 差不多先生
Blah blah blah, "militarily effective", blah blah blah. MariusRoi totally evaded the point about politics being compromise with other nations, not "I do what I want". Stuart is a military expert and his judgement refers only to the military efficiency of ABM. That has no relevance whatsoever to the political rationaty of such an action.

Operating a joint ABM with Russia might be even more effective against "rogue nations" - so why don't you look upon that option, heh?

From a military standpoint, politics of nuclear disarmament, arms limitation treaties and the like are useless pointless bullshit. That is because the military is looking for the ways to influct maxiumum damage on the putative enemy at the lowest cost to it's own assets, and to maintain a maximum efficiency deterrent at all times. It doesn't evaluate diplomacy and diplomatic ramifications in principle, so it becomes the task of politicians to cancel diplomatically unacceptable projects.

Sorry to shit on your parade, but the European missile shield was a major issue with Russia; and achieving a thaw in relations was assumed to be a good enough price. Apparently, not for MariusRoi. But like I said, the military efficiency of a plan and it's political efficiency are two different things.

Morgenthau would've been a military success against Germany, completely disallowing it's rearmament in the nearest years. However, it was politicaly unacceptable. I hope people wrap their heads around that.
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 04:04am 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
Stas Bush wrote:
Sorry to shit on your parade, but the European missile shield was a major issue with Russia


AH, I see the problem.

It's OK for Russia to operate a continental ABM system to defend Western Russia-- don't kid yourself -- that's what the Moscow system is -- unless Russian SCIENCE somehow made a 20-30,000 lb interceptor only capable of defending the moscow area -- but it's not OK for NATO to have a continental ABM system to defend Europe.

Right, glad we got that out of the way.
   Profile |  

Stas Bush
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 04:28am 

Glamorous Commie


Joined: 2003-02-26 12:39pm
Posts: 16867
Location: 差不多先生
MKSheppard wrote:
It's OK for Russia to operate a continental ABM system to defend Western Russia-- don't kid yourself -- that's what the Moscow system is

It's a system that barely has a hundred missiles and only 30 exoatmospheric silo-based, huge-ass interceptors. I think you're delusional. Those 30 huge 45 ton 3 stage interceptors certainly protect Moscow and a 500-km region around it, but anything else? Hardly.
MKSheppard wrote:
unless Russian SCIENCE somehow made a 20-30,000 lb interceptor only capable of defending the moscow area -- but it's not OK for NATO to have a continental ABM system to defend Europe.

Our system is on our territory. How about yours? Unless you want to claim that those European nations are your colonies or something, I don't understand how the two are remotely even close.
MKSheppard wrote:
Right, glad we got that out of the way.

You can build a system around Washington. It would certainly protect a large part of the coast with some exoatmospheric interceptors. In 500 km, maybe you'd even manage to protect New York with those exoatmospheric rockets. Why don't you do so?

In case you want to claim that Russia has more than 30 51T6 rockets, or that the range of 51T6 is more than 500 km, I am all ears. Or maybe you have secret facts of Russia building thousands of them and putting them into former ICBM silos? That would change the debate, but as of now, I don't see a thing.
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 05:17am 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
Stas Bush wrote:
It's a system that barely has a hundred missiles and only 30 exoatmospheric silo-based, huge-ass interceptors.


In my world, 30 is a larger number than 0. Or 10 for that matter.

Quote:
Those 30 huge 45 ton 3 stage interceptors certainly protect Moscow and a 500-km region around it, but anything else? Hardly.


Put down the fucking crack pipe. A-135 and 51T6 are both significantly heavier (32-33,000 kg) compared to GBI's 20,000~ kg; and in early 1998; you guys downloaded their original 1 MT warheads and replaced them with kinetic kill warheads, adding a lot of delta vee to the final stage.

Oh right; in Stas-world, the Americans can manage to get a 5,000 km ranged ABM missile on 20,000 kg, but the russians can only manage 500 km ranged ABM on a missile TEN TONS HEAVIER.

PS, gratiuous p0rn:

Image
51T6

Image
A-135.
   Profile |  

MKSheppard
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 05:23am 

Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger


Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Posts: 28163
Stas Bush wrote:
Unless you want to claim that those European nations are your colonies or something, I don't understand how the two are remotely even close.


Right, I'm sure the European members of NATO are so glad that CONUS has ABM protection, but they don't. That was the whole point of the Polish GBI site - extending ABM protection all the way to Europe.

Stas wrote:
You can build a system around Washington. It would certainly protect a large part of the coast with some exoatmospheric interceptors. In 500 km, maybe you'd even manage to protect New York with those exoatmospheric rockets. Why don't you do so?


Because unlike Soviet Russia, we can protect all of CONUS from a single site in alaska with missiles TEN TONS lighter than Soviet battleship missiles in Moscow. Granted, protecting the eastern coast from missiles headed for it from Iran isn't exactly that optimal, since the Greely based missiles would have to have a very long overflight over the US.
   Profile |  

Darth Raptor
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 06:20am 

Red Mage


Joined: 2003-12-18 04:39am
Posts: 5448
Vympel wrote:
And The Furthering of American Foreign Policy ( :roll: ) is defined as .... what?


Rofflecopter. It's probably "something something something maximal realism; something something something realpolitik" with a crude analogy to rape thrown in for good measure. I'm sure the capitalization of that phrase is supposed to be compelling and not hilarious too.
   Profile |  

Vympel
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 06:22am 

Spetsnaz


Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Posts: 28106
Location: Sydney Australia
Quote:
Put down the fucking crack pipe. A-135 and 51T6 are both significantly heavier (32-33,000 kg) compared to GBI's 20,000~ kg; and in early 1998; you guys downloaded their original 1 MT warheads and replaced them with kinetic kill warheads, adding a lot of delta vee to the final stage.


What's the evidence for this? I thought they had been simply armed with conventional warheads.

Also, nitpick - A-135 isn't a missile, it's the ABM system, which used 51T6 exoatmospheric interceptors (GORGON) and 53T6 endoatmospheric interceptors (GAZELLE). Except 51T6s are not in service anymore, and the 53T6s are the ones that had their 1MT warheads removed.

Soviet Union's/ Russia's ABM network

(The 51T6 is supposed to be replaced by a new exoatmospheric interceptor, called 45T6 - but no word about it lately)
   Profile |  

Bluewolf
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 06:48am 

Dishonest Fucktard


Joined: 2007-04-23 03:35pm
Posts: 1165
Location: UK
Changing the topic slightly, do you think this will really do much to change Russia-US relations or will it just be an effort that goes to waste, diplomatically?
   Profile |  

TimothyC
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 07:44am 

Of Sector 2814


Joined: 2005-03-23 06:31pm
Posts: 3009
Location: Visiting Haleakalā
Vympel wrote:
So missile defences in Poland vs Iran have something to do with defending Poland against Russia, now? Forgive me if I find the fake symbolism laughable.


Due to the placement in Poland and the Czech Republic. it brought the promise of American backing vis a vi NATO to a higher level. The removal of GBI from the aforementioned nations says to Poland and the Czech Republic, and all of the former soviet states/clients that we have been courting in the past two decades that we can't be counted on when push comes to shove.

Vympel wrote:
Also, your pompous recitation of the oath of office is just hilarious - apparently you think there's something in that oath that obliges the executive branch to spare no expense in whatever weapon system you have a hard-on for, as opposed to being very general? Or are you asserting that America was somehow not defended against nuclear attack for some 60+ years?


First that was the oath of office for Congresscritters here in the US. Second the way in which we have been defended has been fraught with problems.

Vympel wrote:
And The Furthering of American Foreign Policy ( :roll: ) is defined as .... what?


Should be the defense of ourselves, our allies, and our vital national interests.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 08:06am 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 23846
^That is a nice definition. Which completely neglects to mention that vital national interests should be replaced with "do what we want".

Also, you completely forget that defence of our allies somehow apparently involves overriding the explicit wishes of the majority of NATO and the EU and that the Missile shield was used by Bush et al in a blatant attempt to fragment the EU.
   Profile |  

Bluewolf
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 08:09am 

Dishonest Fucktard


Joined: 2007-04-23 03:35pm
Posts: 1165
Location: UK
But remember Thanas, America only cares for the interest and saftey of Europe and would never use such a system as a tool for its own ends.. :angelic:

Personally I can see the value in a missile shield but I also see the abuse that has been given to Europe over it. I would be a lot more saddened by this loss if the US had not abused it to a diplomatic end.
   Profile |  

Simon_Jester
PostPosted: 2009-09-18 11:40am 

Emperor's Hand


Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm
Posts: 19969
Stas Bush wrote:
You can build a system around Washington. It would certainly protect a large part of the coast with some exoatmospheric interceptors. In 500 km, maybe you'd even manage to protect New York with those exoatmospheric rockets. Why don't you do so?
I think the Strategic Air Command decided it made more sense to put our system around North Dakota to protect our missile silos than around Maryland to protect our capital. In hindsight, this was probably a mistake; I imagine it's much easier to gather political support for a missile defense system that could plausibly save the lives of the politicians you're talking to.
   Profile |  

Vympel
PostPosted: 2009-09-19 02:47am 

Spetsnaz


Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Posts: 28106
Location: Sydney Australia
Quote:
Due to the placement in Poland and the Czech Republic. it brought the promise of American backing vis a vi NATO to a higher level. The removal of GBI from the aforementioned nations says to Poland and the Czech Republic, and all of the former soviet states/clients that we have been courting in the past two decades that we can't be counted on when push comes to shove.


Counted on for what?

Quote:
First that was the oath of office for Congresscritters here in the US. Second the way in which we have been defended has been fraught with problems.


Nonsense. America's military largesse boggles the mind. The only "problems" with it is how obscenely excessive it is.

Quote:
Should be the defense of ourselves, our allies, and our vital national interests.


Explain how GBI in Poland and the Czech Republic - two minor allies, have fuck all to do with vital American national interests.
   Profile |  

Stas Bush
PostPosted: 2009-09-19 02:56am 

Glamorous Commie


Joined: 2003-02-26 12:39pm
Posts: 16867
Location: 差不多先生
Wait, so the 51T6 has been taken off-duty? Well, Shep, I'm afraid that "0" is not a number greater than "0". Even in your world ;)
MKSheppard wrote:
That was the whole point of the Polish GBI site - extending ABM protection all the way to Europe.

You were recently implying that the mainland US has no ABM protection either. So in fact the US already has it? :lol: And so why is the Russian system a matter of dispute? We have a system, you have a system. You can't "extend" a protection that is nonexistent.
MKSheppard wrote:
Put down the fucking crack pipe. A-135 and 51T6 are both significantly heavier (32-33,000 kg) compared to GBI's 20,000~ kg; and in early 1998; you guys downloaded their original 1 MT warheads and replaced them with kinetic kill warheads, adding a lot of delta vee to the final stage.

51T6 is the only exoatmospheric interceptor that ever was in the arsenal; it's mass is 45,000 kg the last time I was inquiring; and Vympel correctly noted that A-135 is not a missile, neither were the 51T6 the missiles which had some sort of KV installed in the recent years; those were the endoatmospheric 53T6.
MKSheppard wrote:
Because unlike Soviet Russia, we can protect all of CONUS from a single site in alaska with missiles TEN TONS lighter than Soviet battleship missiles in Moscow.

So you already have a site in Alaska online and thus CONUS is protected in entirety. I don't understand what you're rambling about. Destroy this site and we'll talk about taking A-135 offline. Not to mention that it's exoatmospheric component apparently is already offline.
MKSheppard wrote:
Oh right; in Stas-world, the Americans can manage to get a 5,000 km ranged ABM missile on 20,000 kg, but the russians can only manage 500 km ranged ABM on a missile TEN TONS HEAVIER.

Your idea of the range would be...? Don-2NP's effective range is 5000 km. The missile cannot exceed that. Also, the Sprint had a 750 km range for it's 15 tons. A three times greater range would be 2600 km, not 5000 km.
   Profile |  

Count Chocula
PostPosted: 2009-09-19 03:50am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Posts: 1821
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born
A late intrusion into the thread, and slightly OT, but why can't the EU provide their own missile defense? Shit, Britain has the Roland air defense system, the Tornado and Eurofighter are high-tech pieces of kit for their times, Dassault makes fine fighters, and France has both nuke ships and nukes. Hell, tiny little Sweden homebrewed the cool-as-shit Viggen interceptor. Europe has the technology. They have the capability. They can make an ABM system that is faster, better, stronger. But probably for more than $6 million.

Where's Europe's ABM defense? This is not a rhetorical question.
   Profile |  

General Schatten
PostPosted: 2009-09-19 04:08am 

Sith Acolyte


Joined: 2006-07-25 09:32am
Posts: 5445
Location: Beverly, WV
Italy and Germany are working with the US to create MEADS to replace the Patriot System.
   Profile |  

Count Chocula
PostPosted: 2009-09-19 04:19am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Posts: 1821
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born
^ Tell me France and Great Britain aren't protesting a German and Italian axis of alliance. Oh No! WWII redux!

Just kidding, that's good news. Will MEADS be able to cover the entire NATO alliance when it's fielded, including Poland, Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic? If so, will the NATO member states contribute to MEADS development? I hope so, since that would allow us to concentrate our ABM defenses in the US and non-NATO allied countries with US basing/defense agreements.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2009-09-19 06:14am 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 23846
Count Chocula wrote:
^ Tell me France and Great Britain aren't protesting a German and Italian axis of alliance. Oh No! WWII redux!

Just kidding, that's good news. Will MEADS be able to cover the entire NATO alliance when it's fielded, including Poland, Albania, Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic?


That depends. Is the US going to act like an immature brat and will Poland and the Czech Republic continue to fellate them when doing so? If so, they might find themselves without it due to pissing off the main financiers.


But as the EU is not as childish and vindictive as the USA, we will most likely incorporate them, if possible.
   Profile |  

Count Chocula
PostPosted: 2009-09-19 06:17am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2008-08-19 01:34pm
Posts: 1821
Location: You've asked me for my sacrifice, and I am winter born
Fair enough. The faster you incorporate them, the faster we can pull our bases and troops out of Europe and concentrate on our own defense. People here whine about six years in Iraq, and kinda sorta seem to forget we've had bases in Europe for, oh, 64 years after WWII ended.
   Profile |  

Thanas
PostPosted: 2009-09-19 06:26am 

Magister


Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm
Posts: 23846
^Of course, this would do wonders for USA power projection ability all around the world. Hey, let's close down the transit network our forces depend on.

The USA is not going to close its bases like Rammstein.
   Profile |  

hongi
PostPosted: 2009-09-19 08:52am 

Jedi Council Member


Joined: 2006-10-15 02:14am
Posts: 1927
Location: Sydney
Quote:
Changing the topic slightly, do you think this will really do much to change Russia-US relations or will it just be an effort that goes to waste, diplomatically?

Too early to tell, but...
Quote:
MOSCOW – Russia will scrap a plan to deploy missiles near Poland because the U.S. no longer wants to place a missile-defense system in Eastern Europe, a Russian deputy defense minister said Saturday.
   Profile |  

TimothyC
PostPosted: 2009-09-19 10:58am 

Of Sector 2814


Joined: 2005-03-23 06:31pm
Posts: 3009
Location: Visiting Haleakalā
Vympel wrote:
Counted on for what?


Counted on to back them in issues relating to Russia.

Quote:
Nonsense. America's military largesse boggles the mind. The only "problems" with it is how obscenely excessive it is.


Relatively speaking the DoD budget isn't big right now, but a lot of it is wasted.

Quote:
Explain how GBI in Poland and the Czech Republic - two minor allies, have fuck all to do with vital American national interests.


It is a vital intresst that the US be able to trade with Europe. That is why we have forces there. Thus it is also in our interest to defend the assets we have in place in Europe. the fact that by placing a GBI site in eastern Europe, they are positioned to defend the Continental US against ICBMs launched from Iran is why we placed it there, and not in Western Europe.
   Profile |  

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Post a reply  Page 3 of 5
 [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

It is currently 2014-04-17 06:12pm (All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ])

Board index » Non-Fiction » News and Politics

Who is online: Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Rogue 9 and 9 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group