Youngdan good post. Plain common sense says that this is nonsense.

Patriot missiles were not exactly a roaring success.

Ever considered the difficulty and degree of accuracy needed to shoot one missile down with another? You need to know the speed and projection of the incoming missile and all wind conditions. If you miss by a centimetre it is a miss. It is a really difficult 3 dimensional problem. It is like trying to stop one bullet with another.

Regan's mad star wars project made more sense.

youngdan wrote:

Who can believe this absolute drivle. Iran does not have icbm's capable of reaching the US. They do not have a nuclear bomb and they sure as hell dont have a bomb that can be afixed to a missile. Russian missiles fly over the NORTH pole not over Poland.

This is balderdash and anyone that believes it is as dumb as a possum. Why would Iran put a bomb on a missile when they can sail it into Boston Harbour

This point is well made in the Novosti article. It does not mean that these bases are not strategically geared against the Russians. The Novosti piece says the radar is more disadvantageous to the Russians than the shield. The Poles have negotiated that there will be Patriots there too and lets face it, once the bases are there...

Squire wrote:

Youngdan good post. Plain common sense says that this is nonsense.

Patriot missiles were not exactly a roaring success.

Ever considered the difficulty and degree of accuracy needed to shoot one missile down with another? You need to know the speed and projection of the incoming missile and all wind conditions. If you miss by a centimetre it is a miss. It is a really difficult 3 dimensional problem. It is like trying to stop one bullet with another.

Regan's mad star wars project made more sense.

The extent to which military pressure contributed to the fall of the USSR should not be underestimated. The 1983 first strike "exercise" Abel Archer must have frightened the siucra out of the soviet leadership. It is suggested by some that the pressures for military spending to mach the US threat bankrupted them.
The delusion of fighting and winning a nuclear war unfortunately still circulates in the Pentagon. We are already seeing 'nuclear creep' with uranium tipped missiles used in the mid east.

cactus flower wrote:

[ It is suggested by some that the pressures for military spending to match the US threat bankrupted them.
The delusion of fighting and winning a nuclear war unfortunately still circulates in the Pentagon. We are already seeing 'nuclear creep' with uranium tipped missiles used in the mid east.

I would agree with the economic arguement, that and the Afghanistan war.

It is beyond my comprehension that anyone should believe that a Nuclear war is winnable if the other side can chuck a few back in your direction. As for deplete Uranium shells, that really says volumes about how much they care about the country and the people living there.

youngdan wrote:

Who can believe this absolute drivle. Iran does not have icbm's capable of reaching the US. They do not have a nuclear bomb and they sure as hell dont have a bomb that can be afixed to a missile. Russian missiles fly over the NORTH pole not over Poland.

This is balderdash and anyone that believes it is as dumb as a possum. Why would Iran put a bomb on a missile when they can sail it into Boston Harbour

Well we know all that.

Ira doesn't have ICBMs nor nuclear bombs, but they may have them some day.

I presume it would be quite useless to attempt to intercept a Russian Missile flying over Poland as there wouldn't be enough warning time. I also presume that the intercepting missile can be launched to anywhere within range. In other words common sense dictates that they be capable of intercepting missiles over the North Pole or the Mediterranean.

Sailing one bomb into Boston Harbour is fine for terrorists. Iran has ambitions of being a regional power or the top dog in an Islamic super state. To do that they need to be in a position to do serious damage to their enemies.

Squire wrote:

Patriot missiles were not exactly a roaring success.

The success rate in GW1 was 70% in Saudi Arabia and 40% in Israel. That's going on for 18 years ago. We can assume that the technology has advanced a lot since then. I mentioned Patriots as an example of an ABM. The proposed GBIs in Poland won't be Patriots.

Squire wrote:

Ever considered the difficulty and degree of accuracy needed to shoot one missile down with another? You need to know the speed and projection of the incoming missile and all wind conditions. If you miss by a centimetre it is a miss. It is a really difficult 3 dimensional problem. It is like trying to stop one bullet with another.

This isn't an experimental thing. The technology has existed for decades. The Polish GBIs are just updates.

40% or even 70% in a nuclear war isn't very good odds, and that was against Iraq's scud missiles. I am sure ways of making missiles more difficult to hit has also been progressing.

In a military sense I just don't see what Poland has to gain from this. Why make yourself a target by placing someone else's defence system on your soil? That way your fortunes are very much dependant not only on your own actions, but those of Russia or American deeds. To me that is increasing risk unnecessarily.

Squire wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

[ It is suggested by some that the pressures for military spending to match the US threat bankrupted them.
The delusion of fighting and winning a nuclear war unfortunately still circulates in the Pentagon. We are already seeing 'nuclear creep' with uranium tipped missiles used in the mid east.

I would agree with the economic arguement, that and the Afghanistan war.

It is beyond my comprehension that anyone should believe that a Nuclear war is winnable if the other side can chuck a few back in your direction. As for deplete Uranium shells, that really says volumes about how much they care about the country and the people living there.

It looks highly probable that the US was moving towards a first strike under 1983, until Reagan saw a drama doc on US television and got a notion of what the effects might be.

I should have posted this at the beginning of the thread, but here is an explanation of why ABM shields were banned for so long, and are so dangerous:

Quote :

The US missile shield must be understood in the context of its geo-strategic nuclear deployment. Far from being defensive, its ultimate purpose is to obtain such an unassailable advantage over any other nuclear power as to be able to threaten any would-be opponent with nuclear extinction if it were not to comply with the wishes of the US.

(Prof. Francis Boyle, Global Research)
Boyle says

Quote :

Recent disinformation by the western media about Russia starting a new Cold War not only masks the threat of a US Anti-Ballistic Missile shield deployment but, as always, projects the blame on the victim, Russia. The US missile shield must be understood in the context of its geo-strategic nuclear deployment. Far from being defensive, its ultimate purpose is to obtain such an unassailable advantage over any other nuclear power as to be able to threaten any would-be opponent with nuclear extinction if it were not to comply with the wishes of the US.

This new form of nuclear strategy has been called 'compellence'. Remember the word because you won't hear it mentioned by the western MSM which has already tried to distract us from the real dangers behind the deployment of the US missile shield with matters which bear no relevance such as the Litvinenko affair and the inevitable Russian response to retaliate with its own missiles.

By means of a US first strike about 99%+ of Russian nuclear forces would be taken out. So Bush Jr. needs ABMs to take care of what remains. And in any event what really matters here is the perception. Namely, the United States Government believes that with the deployment of a facially successful first strike capability, they can move beyond deterrence and into "compellence." In other words, with an apparent first strike capability, the USG can compel Russia to do its bidding during a crisis. The classic case in point here was the Cuban Missile Crisis where the Soviet Union knew the USG could strike first and get away with it. Hence they capitulated.

This has been analyzed ad nauseam in the professional literature. But especially by one of Harvard's premier warmongers in chief, Thomas Schelling, winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics granted by the Bank of Sweden-- who developed the term "compellence" and distinguished it from "deterrence." The USG is breaking out of a "deterrence" posture and moving into a "compellence" posture. Easier to rule the world that way. Henceforth the USG will be able to compel even nuclear-armed adversaries to do its bidding in a crisis or otherwise.

Treaty.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5935
This Times article of July 9th links the signing of the Polish ABM shield agreement with instability in Georgia- Condaleeza Rice flew straight from Prague after the Czechs signed, to meet Saakashvili and support his case for Georgia to join NATO.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4295309.ece

This link leads to an excellent compendium of studies and press reports on the ABM shield.

http://ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2007/June/12%20o/US-NATO%20'Missile%20Shield'%20Programme%20Index%20Timeline%20By%20Sarah%20Meyer.htm

In Ireland we haven't been tuned in to this issue, which is deeply divisive in the EU, and resisted by the majority of the population of Germany and Eastern Europe, with mass demonstrations going on over the last two years. When we think about "Triple Locks" in Ireland it is worthwhile to see how governments push military commitments ahead in the teeth of the opposition of voters.

The EU has repeatedly asked the US to develope any bases through NATO, not unilaterally, but the US has ignored this and has made deals with heads of government involving large scale inducements of various kinds.

Quote :

Merkel: NATO should defuse missile tension
By UPI Staff
United Press International
March 6, 2007

MOSCOW (UPI) -- German Chancellor and rotating EU President Angela Merkel has called on NATO to defuse growing Russian tension about U.S. missile shields in Europe. Merkel made the remarks to the Financial Times Monday after the head of Russia's strategic bomber force said Russian bombers could easily knock out the installations, which the Bush administration is so far planning to build in Poland and Czech Republic. "NATO is the best place for discussion of this issue," Merkel said. "It is better to have more discussion on this issue rather than less."

Moscow has rejected Washington's claims the shields are designed to protect against missile attacks by North Korea and Iran, and threatened to withdraw from from the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty, which outlawed an entire class of medium-range weapons if Washington goes ahead with construction.

Meanwhile, Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek dismissed European objections to the plan. "As for the 18 EU member states who host U.S. military bases, it is not up to them to comment on the existence of such a presence in the Czech Republic," Topolanek told reporters.

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2007/march/0306_merkel_missile.shtml

This 2007 article from Novosti shows how Russia has tried to appease the US, reducing its nuclear arms stockpile, supporting the Afghanistan intervention and suggesting Khazakstan as an alternative site for the ABM and radar.

Quote :

Appeasement does not seem likely to work.The U.S. Navy is transferring a powerful radar from the Hawaiian Islands to the Aleutian archipelago near the Russian border. Moreover, another radar will be positioned in the South Caucasus, but its exact location is still unclear. In other words, Washington is trying to "contain" Russia.

The American press carries articles about the U.S. absolute military supremacy over Russia and the possibility for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenal of Russia with a first strike. I mean, above all, an article called "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy" by Keir A. Lieber, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, and his colleague Daryl G. Press from the University of Pennsylvania, which appeared in the Foreign Affairs magazine. They cite figures which show that Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/A_New_Era_Of_Nuclear_Fear_May_Loom_In_Shadown_Of_Missile_Shield_999.html

The EU is appallingly vulnerable in this, now providing a platform for US bullying and nuclear 'compulsion' and becoming a target for Russian and probably Chinese missiles. The tragic irony is that the US strategy if successful would result in a US energy stranglehold on Europe. The EU has a small arsenal and military capacity and very small oil and gas resources, being highly dependent on Russia, while trying to develop supplies from Turkmenistan and Khazakstan in competition with China, the US and the Indian subcontinent.

Personally, I have nothing against the populations of Russia or the US and would much rather be co-operating with them to introduce renewables and wind down oil dependency, than worrying about the insane and delusional games that the US is playing.



Finally, a US campaign to impeach George Bush.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=newsHighlights&newsId=14

History is full of fools who thought they were invincible.

On impeachment people like Pelosi's aren't exactly covering themselves in glory.

Squire wrote:

40% or even 70% in a nuclear war isn't very good odds, and that was against Iraq's scud missiles.

As already said, Patriots aren't for shooting down ICBMs. Most of Iran's missile arsenal is based on Scud designs.

Squire wrote:

In a military sense I just don't see what Poland has to gain from this. Why make yourself a target by placing someone else's defence system on your soil?

You can take it that we are all targeted by both sides at all times. I read an interesting article recently on Soviet military mapping of Ireland in the 1980s.

Elsewhere

Quote :

U.S., Israel seal deal for missile radar defense system

By Amos Harel

The United States and Israel have agreed on the deployment of high-powered, early-warning missile radars in the Negev desert, to be manned by U.S. military personnel.

The radars, known as X-Band, will be linked to a U.S. satellite-based alert network.

A spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency (MDA) said the new system could double or even triple the missiles' range of identification, which would be particularly useful should Iran launch an attack on Israel.

Details of the deal, which caught the public's attention at the end of July, were reported yesterday in the periodical Defense News, and were corroborated by senior U.S. and Israeli officials.

The agreement had previously been discussed in meetings with Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and his American counterpart, Admiral Mike Mullen, and by civilian defense leaders of both countries.

According to the periodical, the radar will be operated by staff from the U.S. European Command, starting in early 2009.

The system's deployment may even be moved up to this autumn, in order to integrate it with the Arrow missile defense system.

Under the terms of the agreement, U.S. military staff will be permanently based in Israel for the first time. U.S. Army personnel were temporarily based in the country during the first Gulf War in 1991, and during brief periods of tension with Iraq following that conflict.

Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, the head of MDA, told Defense News that from his perspective, "We're moving ahead as quickly as we can."

The IDF's current early-warning system, known as Green Pine and a component of the Arrow network, has a range of 800-900 kilometers. When combined with the American satellite system, its range expands to 2000 kilometers.

"We've been studying architectures to provide an integrated layered defense that will plug into various architectures for the region for many years," he said. "And having an X-Band radar, like the one we have in Japan, has always been part of our calculation."

An Israeli security expert said the significance of the deal lies primarily in its linking Israel with the U.S. satellite system, which will add "precious minutes" to its early warning ability.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1012170.html

Lestat wrote:

Elsewhere

Quote :

U.S., Israel seal deal for missile radar defense system

By Amos Harel

The United States and Israel have agreed on the deployment of high-powered, early-warning missile radars in the Negev desert, to be manned by U.S. military personnel.

The radars, known as X-Band, will be linked to a U.S. satellite-based alert network.

A spokesman for the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency (MDA) said the new system could double or even triple the missiles' range of identification, which would be particularly useful should Iran launch an attack on Israel.

Details of the deal, which caught the public's attention at the end of July, were reported yesterday in the periodical Defense News, and were corroborated by senior U.S. and Israeli officials.

The agreement had previously been discussed in meetings with Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and his American counterpart, Admiral Mike Mullen, and by civilian defense leaders of both countries.

According to the periodical, the radar will be operated by staff from the U.S. European Command, starting in early 2009.

The system's deployment may even be moved up to this autumn, in order to integrate it with the Arrow missile defense system.

Under the terms of the agreement, U.S. military staff will be permanently based in Israel for the first time. U.S. Army personnel were temporarily based in the country during the first Gulf War in 1991, and during brief periods of tension with Iraq following that conflict.

Lt. Gen. Henry Obering, the head of MDA, told Defense News that from his perspective, "We're moving ahead as quickly as we can."

The IDF's current early-warning system, known as Green Pine and a component of the Arrow network, has a range of 800-900 kilometers. When combined with the American satellite system, its range expands to 2000 kilometers.

"We've been studying architectures to provide an integrated layered defense that will plug into various architectures for the region for many years," he said. "And having an X-Band radar, like the one we have in Japan, has always been part of our calculation."

An Israeli security expert said the significance of the deal lies primarily in its linking Israel with the U.S. satellite system, which will add "precious minutes" to its early warning ability.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1012170.html

The f******s want the entire planet. I suppose they want Mars and the Moon too.
They can't possibly pay for all this.

Just wanted to have posted the last thing on the top six threads. I`ll have an opinion on this when nuclear war starts

Here's Condi and Sakashvilly at a press conference the other day. Condi is clear at the end that Patriot missulls are for defensive purposes only. Sakashvilly's behaviour looks more dangerous than the missells themselves.

cactus flower wrote:

The f******s want the entire planet. I suppose they want Mars and the Moon too.
They can't possibly pay for all this.

A defence budget of $439 billion (2007) goes a long way.

That doesn't include the $170 billion spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan nor the $10 billion spent on Nukes. The nukes are in the Dept of Energy budget for some reason.

But all is now paid by deficit financing, defence on the never never.

Squire wrote:

But all is now paid by deficit financing, defence on the never never.

The never never is meeting the credit crunch.

Of course it's not all one sided.

3rd Aug 2008

Quote :

Hezbollah: 'Practical measures' against IAF overflights

By Yoav Stern and Amos Harel

Hezbollah is planning to take "practical measures" to counter Israeli air force overflights of Lebanon, according to yesterday's edition of the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is considered sympathetic to the Shi'ite group.

It quoted a source who said that Hezbollah is "close to adopting practical measures that will force Israel to cease the overflights."

The report is in line with Israeli intelligence assessments that predicted that following the completion of the Israel-Hezbollah prisoner swap, Hezbollah would seek excuses to resume its struggle against Israel in order to justify its refusal to disarm. Hezbollah has cultivated an image as Lebanon's "protector" against what it describes as Israeli aggression.

There have been a number of reports in the Arab media recently on the planned deployment of anti-aircraft missile batteries in the Lebanese mountains, whose purpose would be to disrupt the flights of Israeli aircraft over the country.

Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah said recently that the group would adopt a new "defensive strategy" in Lebanon, with the cooperation of the country's other political groups.

Israeli military sources believe that Hezbollah is planning to alter its military policy toward Israel by carrying out operations inside Lebanon rather than along the border, in order to bolster its legitimacy among the Lebanese public.

On Wednesday, for the first time since the Second Lebanon War, the organization published a condemnation of Israeli overflights and said that those responsible for stopping them are the government in Beirut and the United Nations. It accused Israel of violating Lebanese sovereignty by flying into its airspace and sailing into its territorial waters, and accused UN peacekeepers in the country of failing to put an end to the violations.

Following the Israel Defense Forces' withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000, the air force stopped overflights of Lebanon. However, they were resumed in October of that same year after Hezbollah abducted three IDF soldiers on the border. Since then, the air force has carried out hundreds of intelligence and surveillance flights. Israel maintains that the flights are necessary for its security, despite protests by the Lebanese government and the UN.

Israel charges that Hezbollah continues to rearm and receive training from Iran, in violation of the cease-fire accord that brought an end to the Second Lebanon War in August 2006.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1007608.html

Today

Quote :

Iran launches satellite carrier

Iran says it has successfully launched a rocket capable of carrying its first domestically built satellite.

Officials said only the rocket had been fired, correcting state media reports that the communications satellite itself had been sent into orbit.

The White House voiced concern, saying the technology could also be used for launching weapons.

Tehran has pursued a space programme for years, despite international concern over its nuclear plans.

In February it sent a probe into space as part of preparations for the launch of the satellite.

Long-held ambition

Footage aired on Irinn (Islamic Republic of Iran News Network) showed the launch of the Safir rocket in darkness.

The presenter said that the satellite launch was a trial which was successful. State and military officials confirmed the launch had taken place.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was at the event, said one report.

In October 2005 a Russian-made Iranian satellite named Sina-1 was put into orbit by a Russian rocket.

Sunday's launch comes amid a long-running dispute over Iran's nuclear activities.

White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe said: "The Iranian development and testing of rockets is troubling and raises further questions about their intentions.

"This action and dual use possibilities for their ballistic missile programme are inconsistent with their UN Security Council obligations."

The US and some European countries have demanded that Iran curtail uranium enrichment - but Iran protests that its purposes are peaceful and says it has a right to continue.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7566804.stm

Look where not having WMDs got Iraq. I'm sure everybody else has.

cactus flower wrote:

Look where not having WMDs got Iraq. I'm sure everybody else has.

Iraq had WMDs. Ask the people of Halabja. Or the Iranian army.

They just didn't have them in 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

This entire thread is filled with delusion. A rogue stare can ship a thousand nukes in in cargo containers if they like. The Russians can totally destroy the US at any time with one sub http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/941.htm

Even without the 2 posters that are faurthest from reality it is still gone to fantasy land. This is the question. Why are the decision makers in Poland setting a bullseye on their arse and why is the donkey in Ukraine now saying he wants to do the same thing. When he have the answer ye can dwell on why the Ukrainians gave all the nukes to the Russians. It does not take a genius to work it out.

youngdan wrote:

This entire thread is filled with delusion. A rogue stare can ship a thousand nukes in in cargo containers if they like. The Russians can totally destroy the US at any time with one sub http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/941.htm

Even without the 2 posters that are faurthest from reality it is still gone to fantasy land. This is the question. Why are the decision makers in Poland setting a bullseye on their arse and why is the donkey in Ukraine now saying he wants to do the same thing. When he have the answer ye can dwell on why the Ukrainians gave all the nukes to the Russians. It does not take a genius to work it out.

I'd still be interested to know youngdan how the US proposes to pay for the massive arms expenditure initiated by Bush?

youngdan wrote:

...The Russians can totally destroy the US at any time with one sub http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/941.htm....

If you read that link it suggests that the Russians would be lucky to get a submarine to Sea let alone destroy the US with one.

Quote :

Why Russia Matters Less than We Think
From Lionel Beehner, a journalist formerly with the Council on Foreign Relations, in the Huffington Post: Why do we suddenly care so much about Russia? Its economy is still smaller than Portugal's, its nuclear stockpile is no match for our own (not to mention its Soviet-era early warning radars barely work), and its foreign ambitions, as George Kennan predicted generations ago, have been mostly contained. Plus, given its current demographic trends, some analysts predict Russia's population could sink below 100 million by 2050, making it smaller than Mexico.

Yet for some reason, Washington has worked itself into a lather worrying about Russia. It shouldn't.

Some would say it is to distract from the implosion of the US economy.

Cactus. It costs the US nothing to spend any amount of money on the military. The Federal Reserve can print a trillion dollars in the morning and a lad on a bike can cycle over to the Treasury Building with it. Why do you think the government allows the Federal Reserve to exist. Did I not post somewhere that were it not for the Fed the Iraq War could not be fought.

Lestat. 2 weeks ago you would have posted that the Russian military was rusting in scrapyards. Amazing what a lick of paint can do.

If you see one of these babies over Ireland call Willie Oday immediately.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5585095443951628708&ei=BU2qSMrWEYWqrgLI9smeBA&q=russian+bombers&vt=lf

A typhoon sub carries 200 nukes each about 20 times the blast of fat boy. Just one is more than enough. They say they have about 20 subs and I say who knows. These 20 carry icbms and I am not talking about regular submarines that they seem to be selling off.

Anyway 1 EMP explosion over the US would fry every circuit and kill about 250 million through starvation.

This is an interesting take https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiWKoruqyfg&feature=user

Unfortunately as you point out youngdan, what people on either side say they have is not necessarily what they do have.

The problem with the ABM shield is that it is not designed for defence against a first strike (if 9/11 is anything to go by the lads would want a week's notice to get anything in the air). It is to have on the ready to deal with a response to your first strike.

Once you see your opposition install a shield, you may start thinking that the only way to deal with him is for you to be the one carrying out the first strike.
A poster on P.ie said, that when this shield goes in place, if there was a futures market for the human species, the price would crash through the floor. That is why the ABM Treaty held for thirty years.