Yet another country bitchslapped back in their place

Russia has said it may target its missiles at Ukraine if its neighbour joins Nato and accepts the deployment of the US missile defence shield.

Link, BBC

ORIGINAL: immortaldanmx

Yet another country bitchslapped back in their place

Russia has said it may target its missiles at Ukraine if its neighbour joins Nato and accepts the deployment of the US missile defence shield.

Link, BBC

Leaving the bullshit in the other thread so that serious discussion can be had in here...

I think the " missle defense" shield is a bad idea. Not in principle, but certainly in practice. I don' t blame Russia for being concerned and i think they' re right about something like this being the catalyst to a new arms race, and Russia are backed by China and India. With China well on it' s way to having the worlds largest economy and well on it' s way to superpower status... i doubt anybody would want to go to war with them.

i doubt anybody would want to go to war with them.

No truly intelligent country will go to war with the US. Thats why its only insurgents and such. A little known fact is, that at every day, the US has Nuclear Submarines circling the globe, with the standing order of if the US is nuked/attacked to the point of not being able to continue as it was before, they are ordered to nuke every developed country back to the stone age with us. That being said, how long before Russia or China can counter such an attack or detect our submarines.

If a nuke hits any country and was detonated by an opposing country you can kiss the world goodbye. Every country with nuclear weapons will launch in desperation trying to cover their own asses. Nuclear fallout would be world wide.

Isnt that called Nuclear Winter?

ORIGINAL: immortaldanmx

i doubt anybody would want to go to war with them.

No truly intelligent country will go to war with the US. Thats why its only insurgents and such. A little known fact is, that at every day, the US has Nuclear Submarines circling the globe, with the standing order of if the US is nuked/attacked to the point of not being able to continue as it was before, they are ordered to nuke every developed country back to the stone age with us. That being said, how long before Russia or China can counter such an attack or detect our submarines.

I don' t know how much of a fact it is but it sounds about right. But an intercontinental nuclear attack on the United States is highly unlikely anyway, given that if your Navy ships don' t pick any incoming missiles up your fleet of AWACS or Norad will.

No, the US is probably only susceptible to low-yield < 1 kiloton suitcase nukes, and they wouldn' t do an awful lot of damage compared to the real thing. One going off could trigger another depression, but nothing that couldn' t be recovered from.

Nukes are and will most probably always be used (until they' re banned outright) as a deterrent and nothing more. The biggest threat for any country is from extremists acquiring Soviet or possibly North Korean suitcase nukes which could be smuggled into the states the same way drugs are.

Russia are obviously trying to ward off the Ukraine from cooperating with the Americans, much like how they tried (and failed) to ward off the Polish last year. Poland is still game because a) they don' t like Russia, and b) you guys are bolstering their air-force. Maybe a similar deal with be struck with the Ukrainians. If so, Russia is more likely to attack them than you, and the UN would have to deal with it " in-kind" . Russia might have the largest stockpiles of cruise missiles and nukes in the world but they' re not in much condition to fight a war (though they have been making efforts to strengthen their arsenal in recent years) - especially not on their own.

Isnt that called Nuclear Winter?

The period of time in which fallout is falling is Nuclear Winter. The (futile) policy of retaliatory nuclear strikes established in the Cold War is called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ... no s***. Absolute insanity.

" Missile Defense" as in an automated system that could track and shoot down missiles mid-flight will never happen... at least not within the next few hundred years. There' s no way to wrangle that many variables, no computer could handle that much data, because the whole set of variables itself is too complex and fast-moving. It' s a scam for defense contractors to rake in more money on something that is functionally impossible.

Actually it' s very possible. Right now we have the technology to locate missiles in mid flight (shit we' re tracking pretty much everything in the sky). Taking out a missile that' s flying over the ocean isn' t that difficult (crossing over an ocean takes a good amount of time) and the airforce can already scramble jets to intercept missiles and shoot them down.

We also have missiles that are so precise that can we can target things with only inches of error. Taking down a missile with a huge heat signature flying in pretty much a straight line to its target from long is far from impossible. Removing the time it takes to actually scramble jets and get them to their target by having an orbital weapon that instantly deploys artillery makes things much more accurate and swift.

there will always be a human component to the system. Numerous divisions of the airforce will be monitoring the skies and activate the sequence. You won' t need some crazy all knowing supercomputer to run the system.

Calculating that stuff doesn' t require much of a computer.

A couple years ago the US made a laser system capable of taking out mortar shells. There might be a video of it somwhere on the nets.

When you consider that the U.S. and Russia have tens of thousands of missiles, though, and the damage that only one can do... not to mention the possibility of a missile' s propulsion system malfunctioning, causing a haywire, erratic flight path... I really don' t believe that there can be any adequate in-flight missile defense system. It' s a pipe dream, and a way for weapons manufacturers to rake in more money. They created the problem, now they are trying to sell a false solution.

Fear mongering. Like Zoy said there has to be a limit to how many such a system can defend against. I just can' t imagine anyone sending just one missile if they were serious about attacking a nation. You would launch dozens, right? I don' t know the technology well enough, but it sounds like a bullshit plan. Just like the amped up boarder patrol and airport security... The citizens pay for no results.

If I was American I wouldn' t be worried about this nonsense. You guys still have the biggest guns, that' s the best defence anyone has. Dan said it, no one with the capability is dumb enough to make a move on the US.

A good case of usefullnes would be if terrorists somehow gained control of an ICBM.

A good case of usefullnes would be if terrorists somehow gained control of an ICBM.

And these guys don' t give a sh!t about attacking the US.

Long range ICBMs are relatively easy to knock down, thats why the most recent Russian missile subs were designed to approach the US Eastern Seaboard and lob a couple of warheads from a few hundred miles off, there' s no missile system that could stop that. Sure most of the missile subs would be tracked and destoyed in time (if warning was given) but it only takes one sub and that' s all the US' major conurbations and infrastructure gone. China has always copied Russia' s military tactics to it seems sensible to assume they would have the same plan.

But then also it only takes one nutter with issues to carry a bomb into the centre of a city and set it off, what goods a missile defence then - such a scenario is far more likely in today' s climate.

And for those who think China and Russia would gang up on the rest of the world, they wouldn' t, while they were both communist to some extent in the past they both hate each other, there have been a number of major battles across their shared border since WW2 that never got reported properly in the west. The Chinese are trying to expand their empire, and it will only take a small time until they see the massive amount of resources available in eastern Russia as a prize too tempting to miss.

ORIGINAL: Ornodeal

And for those who think China and Russia would gang up on the rest of the world, they wouldn' t, while they were both communist to some extent in the past they both hate each other, there have been a number of major battles across their shared border since WW2 that never got reported properly in the west. The Chinese are trying to expand their empire, and it will only take a small time until they see the massive amount of resources available in eastern Russia as a prize too tempting to miss.

Russia and China are currently allies. It' s not always been the case and it won' t last forever but in recent years their ties have become much stronger... probably because of US military presence and ambitions in Central Asia. The SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) and CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation) made up of China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Mongolia, Iran and Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Armenia respectively have a very close relationship.

Russia and China have a longstanding bilateral military cooperation agreement, and have conducted numerous joint military exercises in the past decade. They have a mutual aim and that' s to deter a US military presence in the Caspian Sea. The US isn' t looking for trouble with China or Russia though, but rather Iran, Syria and North Korea. Russia is the largest suppier of advanced military tech to many of these countries and they have agreements to conduct joint war games in services-to-services interaction, development of new weapons systems and training of military personnel with just about everybody in the region... primarily China and India.

The US and Russia are the worlds largest suppliers of military equipment. It' s been back and forth between who' s the largest out of the two for 7 or 8 years now, and the difference is minimal. Regardless, like during the Cold War, the supply of military equipment is used to increase the standing of the supplying nation in the recipient' s country, and Russia supplies to all members of the SCO and CSTO as well as many others. The US is still scared of Russia and Russia is still scared of the US. That' s not going to change for a long time.

America needs to be bombed to the ground, they tell eveyone that having nuclear weapons is bad....they have over 5500+ burn in hell Bush.

sigh.....

Hahaha... I got a good laugh out of that.

America needs to be bombed to the ground, they tell eveyone that having nuclear weapons is bad....they have over 5500+ burn in hell Bush.

What poor piece of shit country do you live in? Almost all developed countries have Nukes, including: Britain, France, Israel, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, hell, Germany and Japan would have them if there werent treaties preventing it. If your country doesnt have nukes because they dont know how or have the money to make them, you should be bombed to the ground.

If your country doesnt have nukes because they dont know how or have the money to make them, you should be bombed to the ground.

Comments like that = comments like:

America needs to be bombed to the ground, they tell eveyone that having nuclear weapons is bad....they have over 5500+ burn in hell Bush.

Basically, you' ve just said something as stupid as PhoenixSlash said, except you make it sound pro-US. Still, both equally stupid. [:' (]