What puzzles me is what use a missile defence system is when Russia has (at least) 5000 operational nukes anyway. What sort of system could possibly take these down (in the great off-chance Russia would actually want to use them) with any significant degree of accuracy?
It’s a pointless slap in the face that isn’t going to help Europe or the US against either Islam (teh terrorists) or Russia at all. Worse, the Russian reaction will probably do more harm than good. If not now, then in the years ahead (Russia will supply something like 70% of Europe’s oil).

Well, yeah. And while we are on the subject: exactly What Missile Shield are we talking about? I don’t think there is one up, is there? Pointing at anyone?

The United States has never had a national missile defense system operational, nor has anything operational yet materialized out of the European initiative. The best the United States has managed are point and theater defense systems, which aren’t necessarily designed against the same scope or type of threat. After reading plenty of articles and interviews with developers of the Sentinel/Safeguard program, through the SDI and into the current NMD system (mainly in the context of 99.9% software reliability), it’s apparent that the only time at which there will truly a proper ballistic missile defense system in place is once it’s tested to its full potential, which can only be done in an endgame scenario anyway.

…not in the last 60 years really

Quoting Robert R:

Any Missile Defense scheme that gets put into place will be there to protect “Europe” from so called Islamic Terrorists; not the Russians.

How exactly does an anti-missile system protect against an Iraqi widow with an explosive vest? Or a Taliban IED? Or a Hizbullah mortar? On 9/11, the US had a multi-billion-dollar missile defense system, and it sure didn’t do them any good.

Unlike the US or Europe, Russia has an *actual* armed Muslim insurrection in Chechnya/Ossetia, yet they have shown no indication of building a missile defense. Maybe that should tell you something…

I’m not sure to what degree of tongue-in-cheek was being talked about in the original quote, but most likely, the “Islamic Terrorists” being talked about are sovereign states that are seen as “terrorist supporters”, not irregular forces that don’t have the capability to create or acquire the materials needed to launch the types of weapons these interceptors are meant to intercept.

The missile defense systems being fielded are to intercept ballistic missiles before re-entry. To me, it’s been pretty obvious that it’s been positioned as self-created “proof” of the threat of Middle-Eastern states, a foot in the door to use the countries in which they’re being deployed as forward bases, and most importantly, a way of redistributing the balance of nuclear power independent of how many weapons the United States itself has (so they can abide by whatever treaties they want). It’s obvious that Russia is aware that the last point is the most key, else they wouldn’t be puffing out their chests by reminding the United States about their fielding of MIRV-equipped Topol-Ms (The RS-24) that can (supposedly) avoid interceptors. Any talk of a missile shield being used to protect against terrorist weapons is just rhetoric.

Arecibo, I wouldn’t trust any of the reports (official or unofficial) that account for any countries military capability. Especially since they come up with different numbers and we cen pick and choose which report/agency to follow.

I put all current information I read through the lens of the experiences of immediate family members who have, at the bare minimum, worked at Air Command Headquarters before and after the creation of AIRCOM (from their old digs, through the early nineties), which, for the most part, was the closest thing we had to a foreign intelligence service - raw information from the United States and Britain was sent there when received. By the late 1970s, this included, at the very least, same-day satellite images from the United States of Soviet missile tests, suspected research and production facilities, etc. A friend had, up until a couple of years ago, served in the 91st Space Wing. Immediate family of close friends have overseen projects related to national defense based on the known capabilities of other countries through NRC-IAR. Since I doubt they would like me to identify them, I don’t, nor do I use it as justification for my views. I’m not, however, someone who regurgitates reports without understanding how they interpret information, truths that are usually left on the cutting room floor, etc.

My overall point was that both organizations - NATO, and Russia with their tenuous grasp on satellite states formerly part of the USSR - are playing the same game. Minimizing the capabilities of other countries in comparison to NATO, and the United States in particular, is missing the point. I practically agree with everything Matt said in the first half of his last post - Russia has, on ever level, been more interested in managing image first and playing catch-up with actual capabilities later (even among conventional weapons, anyone who has been able to look at the parameters Vympel has used to define weapons specifications compared to contemporaries like Raytheon provides a good indicator of force inflation that scales throughout the entire Russian weapons industry). I always love a good historically-based technical discussion too, but that’s somewhat irrelevant in the context of what’s being spoken about here. Regardless of how outdated weapons delivery systems are, as long as they can go up in the air, they can and will. Accuracy, reliability, range, and other factors will suffer, but in the end, it’s the immediate willingness and raw capability to use a wholly indiscriminate and unnecessary amount of force that’s being argued here, and on that, NATO doesn’t have a monopoly.

I should also add that re: Matt’s Political Comparisons section, the statements I’ve often said in my posts weren’t implying that you’re marginalizing Russia’s capabilities or intentions; they’ve been general statements at the type of people who have sprung up in this comment section who take information from your original article and place it in a vacuum - pretend that it’s the only truth in the situation, and then hen-peck information about similar problems in other parts of the world, as though the fact that other countries having morally questionable weaponry and participating in the exact same kind of black market arms trade that most industrial countries do takes away from the NATO argument, which it doesn’t. It cheapens the conversation and the original message, but it wasn’t directed at you. Simply the hyperbole and unrealistic arguments that tend to follow what you say.

Any Missile Defense scheme that gets put into place will be there to protect “Europe” from so called Islamic Terrorists; not the Russians.

How exactly does an anti-missile system protect against an Iraqi widow with an explosive vest? Or a Taliban IED? Or a Hizbullah mortar? On 9/11, the US had a multi-billion-dollar missile defense system, and it sure didn’t do them any good.

Unlike the US or Europe, Russia has an *actual* armed Muslim insurrection in Chechnya/Ossetia, yet they have shown no indication of building a missile defense. Maybe that should tell you something…

It depends if the governing bodies are secular in nature or religious. If religion is injected into everyday life, chaos might ensue. Economic stagnation? Who knows. I’m saying it will happen; not that I think it will be a good thing or bad. I leave that to history.

If you look into the future a wee bit, you’ll notice there is no United States. You’ll see the North American Union. (Which is already here.) Thanks for the cheap, unskilled labor Mexico! Thanks for the oil Canada! But mostly thank you for the delicious water!

Any Missile Defense scheme that gets put into place will be there to protect “Europe” from so called Islamic Terrorists; not the Russians.

Quoting Giant:

Quoting Robert R:

Giant, I have said nothing remotely anti-Muslim while stating my opinions. There is more than one way to “Conquer” an opponent. Read the stats on Muslim immigration rates, birth rates, etc.

Maybe it’s just me, but the fact that you view immigration as “conquering,” and believe that as a result Europe is “cooked,” and that the “big face off” will be between the Islamics and Hispanics seems blatantly racist to me.

It’s just you. I am not a blatant racist. I am an observer.

‘Robert, for your info, not all Rosskie moved to New York, but many are in Brooklin. Brighton Beech is for Russian and Ukranian Jews. Also, most Russian who managed to immigrate to states are actually of Jewish origin - Canada is much more accepting to people of no means.’

I realize not all Russians moved to Brighton Beach. That was an attempt at humor. Do you see any similarities between German jews leaving Germany and Russian jews leaving Russia? Ahead of the curve perhaps. The ability to see, “The Shit Come Down”?

Let me get this straight: The Jews who came to America are rich; the Jews who come to Canada are poor? Where did the atheist commie Russians go? Or did they stay and form Vodka Troikas?

I suppose we could get into the argument of outdated delivery systems,…
.

Thank You Matt, I wanted to write about this yesterday, but I suppose debaters here will follow your lead better then mine. I remember pictures and reports, after the “Bloc” fell of piles of warheads that turned out to be just empty shells… And then of course, soviets were always notorious for corruption/stealing - if there is any bolt/knob/screw that you can take home as a gift (or to sell), it will be done!

Arecibo, I wouldn’t trust any of the reports (official or unofficial) that account for any countries military capability. Especially since they come up with different numbers and we cen pick and choose which report/agency to follow.

Giant, common Immigration is conquering - they’ll mess with your mind man! They will multiply and take over your territory! Don’t trust any immigrant - they all come with a secret agenda. And, they will refuse to wear hats over turbans!

Robert, for your info, not all Rosskie moved to New York, but many are in Brooklin. Brighton Beech is for Russian and Ukranian Jews. Also, most Russian who managed to immigrate to states are actually of Jewish origin - Canada is much more accepting to people of no means.

I want to say more, but time to stop…

Croatia already has a contingent in Afghanistan. They have had one there since 2003.

As a part of EAPC, yes. But not in a combat capacity. As a NATO member, the point was, will they be asked to serve in that capacity. I edited that line though, so it makes a little more sense. Good point though.

After the Cold War ended, numerous Soviet officials claimed that, during it, Russian nuclear ambitions were nowhere near as significant as the West perceived them to be. One reality that is overlooked is Soviet intelligence initiatives that worked to promote a false sense of Soviet nuclear capabilities. This was one way in which the Soviets counter-balanced their inability to spend as much as the US was able to on defense. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, the United States had a clear tactical nuclear advantage of roughly three to one, which is, according to the likes of Robert McNamara, a conservative estimate. Throughout the Cold War, the United States possessed a nuclear advantage over the Soviets, which was clearly reflected in US defense spending during those years.

With the exception of Soviet nuclear sub technology (there is no arguing that the Soviets ultimately placed most of their eggs in that basket, the Typhoon program speaks to that, as it produced the world’s foremost Boomers, a fact conceded by the US military), the US had a significant advantage in state of the art delivery systems. After the Soviet block fell, the state of the Soviet arsenal was found to be replete with outdated weapon systems that were, by no means, the equal of US systems – be they intercontinental, land based missiles (as well as medium range missiles), or bomber based.

All of that said, context is required when examining this subject with regards to green-light nuclear readiness verses mothballed weapons, not to mention the state of those conciliatory programs that exist to deliver nuclear payloads. In that arena, the United States has a clear advantage with regards to their ability to, within a frighteningly short time frame, employ nuclear force backed by state of the art delivery capabilities. To this day, The Football remains within feet of the President except in those instances when he is publicly speaking, on television, in meetings, or sleeping. In those instances, it remains with close proximity. The Football, which is carried at all times by a US Military Officer with Yankee White clearance, contains the President’s SATCOM package, Gold Codes, and the Decision Book. The SOIP’s targeting options, to this day, are broken into four categories – Russian Nuclear Forces, Conventional Military Forces, Foreign Political and Military Leadership and Command Structures, and Economic and Industrial Targets.

Political Comparisons

Nowhere in this entry did I state that Russian leadership is replete with noble intentions. I will be the first to admit that Russia is, at best, a faux democracy. That shouldn’t detract from the reality that the US is a plutocracy, but I would never dream of defending the current Russian political landscape beyond stating that Russians must ultimately be responsible for their own political destiny and that foreign influencing will only hinder that progress.

But that does not, by any means, detract from the reality that to place a Ballistic Missile Defense Shield in their backyard is like baiting a Pitbull in a cage with a raw steak. There are bound to be ramifications, and to sit back and say that the Russians are reacting in a manner that the US wouldn’t were this an instance of the Russians spearheading a similar program in the Western Hemisphere is geopolitically uneducated. There is no arguing that Russia possesses significant influence in the region and that they are bent on retaining it. That is to be expected given the fact that, not twenty years ago, they were akin to a global imperial power that controlled most of Eastern Europe.

That said, how did discussion of this entry turn to comparing George Bush to Stalin? Who, in their right mind, believes that I would be so dim as to even dare compare the two? I have, in the past, stated that George Bush is easily one of the worst Presidents in US history, and that his administration ushered in a foreign policy doctrine that is unbelievably dangerous, but never have I compared him to the likes of Stalin, and those that would try to bend discussions to such moronic levels are not adding any intelligent commentary to the actual subject at hand – simply playing childish games because they have nothing realistic to contribute regarding the subject itself.

Beware the fluffy pillows!!

Giant, I have said nothing remotely anti-Muslim while stating my opinions. There is more than one way to “Conquer” an opponent. Read the stats on Muslim immigration rates, birth rates, etc.

Maybe it’s just me, but the fact that you view immigration as “conquering,” and believe that as a result Europe is “cooked,” and that the “big face off” will be between the Islamics and Hispanics seems blatantly racist to me.

Of course, even with countries like France which have comparatively low birth rates, a good percentage of those births are to immigrant parents, so its more apparent than it would even seem at first glance.