Russian-U.S. "Tension" : Cold War II?

[Winner]

And I thought Putin was paranoid ...

-- Ravensfire

Paranoia has been a traditional Russian way of thinking since Mongols invaded them in 13th century.

 

[Gelion]

Paranoia has been a traditional Russian way of thinking since Mongols invaded them in 13th century.

At least we dont have an inferiority complex. Paranoia has nothing to do with geopolitics. World is not black and white..... just try and grab that.

 

[Gelion]

Gods, you Russians are taught to be deliberately obtuse or what?

12 missile interceptors can delay the Russian strategic forces for about... umm, 30 seconds.

This is not a system designed to protect strategic offensive weapons, it is a system designed to shield the selected area from an attack by low-tech, single warhead, primitive missiles used by rogue states like Iran or North Korea.

THERE IS NOTHING MORE TO IT!

Realize that finally and cut the paranoid crap.

If its against North Korea... Turkey is A FAR better location.
I've stated my point..... I dont care if you accept it or not.

 

[Winner]

If its against North Korea... Turkey is A FAR better location.
I've stated my point..... I dont care if you accept it or not.

North Korea is solely American/Asian problem. European part of the system is meant to protect Europe from Middle Eastern missiles.

You've stated a wrong point. You ignore facts and still repeat your opinion based on wrong premises.

You can explain how could 12 interceptors, not designed to shoot down MIRVed warheads, threaten Russian position. Until then, I don't care what you say.

 

[innonimatu]

North Korea is solely American/Asian problem. European part of the system is meant to protect Europe from Middle Eastern missiles.

If that was the case then Turkey or the southern Balkans would be the best choice. And explain also how interceptors placed in Great Britain will “protect Europe”…

Consider any possible scenario where missiles are launched against american (or european, if you prefer) targets, and the system is used. Where will interception happen? The interceptors is designed to hit and likely detonate incoming missiles. If they are placed by Russia’s borders… they will blow them inside Russia! In fact, Russia would see missiles entering its own air space, unable to know what payload they carried… In the paranoid world of nuclear war planning and MAD, this amounts to a declaration of war. Russia would have to choose between immediately launching a counterattack (precipitating a global thermonuclear war) or hoping it wasn’t all a ruse to deliver a first strike. And you have stated you believe Russians are paranoid…

The idea that american and european planners would be oblivious to this problem is insane. So it follows that the real target of the system is in fact Russia.
I’m not claiming it is really intended to be used in war. It will be a useful tool in diplomacy. And it will have a greater effect on US-Europe relations, and Russia-Europe relations. Splitting the latter, and consequentially binding together the first in an alliance from which any single European country will have greater difficulty to break off.

The purpose of the system is to foster a new cold war. There must always be an outside enemy to fear, and it there isn’t one, then it must be created. Fearing an old and mostly defanged empire, central european countries are submitting to, and allowing themselves to be manipulated by, a new one.

 

[REDY]

Its more about politics than real military effect. Its sad money spending but its American choice.

 

[Winner]

If that was the case then Turkey or the southern Balkans would be the best choice. And explain also how interceptors placed in Great Britain will “protect Europe”…

Interceptors won't be placed in Great Britain, but Poland, as is currently planned.

Also, they have a sort of "minimum range". Turkey wouldn't be a good choice, furthermore, it wouldn't let the US to build it there.

Consider any possible scenario where missiles are launched against american (or european, if you prefer) targets, and the system is used. Where will interception happen?

Above the Earth's atmosphere, in the middle of the warhead's trajectory.

The interceptors is designed to hit and likely detonate incoming missiles.

NO!

The warhead won't detonade after being hit by the "kill vehicle". It will be destroyed, but the nuclear explosion won't be set off!

If they are placed by Russia’s borders… they will blow them inside Russia! In fact, Russia would see missiles entering its own air space, unable to know what payload they carried… In the paranoid world of nuclear war planning and MAD, this amounts to a declaration of war. Russia would have to choose between immediately launching a counterattack (precipitating a global thermonuclear war) or hoping it wasn’t all a ruse to deliver a first strike. And you have stated you believe Russians are paranoid…

Russians are paranoid, but not stupid.

Missile trajectories from Iran and North Korea don't lead through Russian airspace. Even if they did, Russians should be able to track them and realize, what's going on.

The idea that they would start a nuclear war over few missiles is very, very exagerrated.

The idea that american and european planners would be oblivious to this problem is insane. So it follows that the real target of the system is in fact Russia.
I’m not claiming it is really intended to be used in war. It will be a useful tool in diplomacy. And it will have a greater effect on US-Europe relations, and Russia-Europe relations. Splitting the latter, and consequentially binding together the first in an alliance from which any single European country will have greater difficulty to break off.

The purpose of the system is to foster a new cold war.

That's totally untrue. The purpose is to prevent the anti-Western nation from blackmailing us with their missiles.

There must always be an outside enemy to fear, and it there isn’t one, then it must be created. Fearing an old and mostly defanged empire, central european countries are submitting to, and allowing themselves to be manipulated by, a new one.

If Central European countries feared Russia, why would they prove it by inviting Americans?

The answer is rather simple. The system isn't meant to be used against Russia. It is meant to protect us all for very little cost. Czech and Polish governments realize that we have to prepare for threats coming from outside of Europe and that is why we entered negotiations with the US.

 

[innonimatu]

Interceptors won't be placed in Great Britain, but Poland, as is currently planned.

We shall see...

Above the Earth's atmosphere, in the middle of the warhead's trajectory.

Oh, it will still fall somewhere, which leads us to...

The warhead won't detonade after being hit by the "kill vehicle". It will be destroyed, but the nuclear explosion won't be set off!

...the problem of what happens to the warhead. I believe the most likely outcome, should the system be effective, is that it will blow somewhere near the interception point. Think about the alternatives!
The official propaganda claims the missile will disintegrate and burn in the atmosphere. It deliberately avoids discussing the warhead itself…

Russians are paranoid, but not stupid.

Missile trajectories from Iran and North Korea don't lead through Russian airspace. Even if they did, Russians should be able to track them and realize, what's going on.

Well, that begs the question of why, then, would the missiles be installed in Poland...
As for the Russians not (over?)reacting, do you want to bet the future of the world on that? Do you know what boosters will be used for the interceptors? Last news I read mentioned using the Minuteman III ICBM. And the interceptor is supposed to include multiple kill vehicles. In other words, It’s exactly the same thing as a nuclear-armed ICBM with MIRV, and that is the only think Russians will be able to know about it.
If you don’t believe me, just check the official site of the US Missile Defence Agency. And while you’re at it make sure to read that little excerpt of the National Missile Defense Act of 1999:

It is the policy of the United States to deploy as soon as is technologically possible an effective National Missile Defense system capable of defending the territory of the United States against limited ballistic missile attack (whether accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate) with funding subject to the annual authorization of appropriations and the annual appropriation of funds for National Missile Defense.

That's totally untrue. The purpose is to prevent the anti-Western nation from blackmailing us with their missiles.

Bah…

Such calls reveal a deeper European wariness. American supporters of the shield worry that without it rogue states will be able to achieve “access denial”, which is jargon for limiting America's ability to send its troops wherever it thinks its national interests require them. To many European politicians, of course, a bit more “access denial” for America's armed forces would be no bad thing.

The purpose is for the US to retain its ability to blackmail other nations.

The system isn't meant to be used against Russia. It is meant to protect us all for very little cost. Czech and Polish governments realize that we have to prepare for threats coming from outside of Europe and that is why we entered negotiations with the US.

The system will not protect Europe. Quite the opposite, by possibly (?) making it more difficult to successfully target the US, it will make retaliation against Europe more attractive. It will make the US more likely to cause military confrontations (less fearful of the consequences), and expose its allies to greater danger.
Note that the system cannot protect Europe. The interceptors being discussed are part of the midcourse defence segment, such interceptors placed in Europe would be useless to defend Europe as they only target missiles in midcourse phase, and missiles aimed at European targets would be in the terminal phase of its flight.

 

[Lotus49]

The Russians really can't stand the fact that they are not as fearsome as they used to be. Sort of like a chess match, when you have fewer remaining pieces than your adversary, and are in an awkward strategic position.

They need to be in the opposite position, to be comfortable. It's the paranoid mob mentality... inspire fear in others, or be afraid yourself. Frankly, this mindset is a bit primitive, and disappointing. Hopefully they can eventually outgrow it. The Germans did.

Meantime, it's just a bunch of mind games. We're playing them, for old time's sake. A couple of old chess champions, playing a bit to reminisce the old days. But neither of us is stupid, so let's all calm down. Nothing crazy is going to happen... the Russians just don't like this new position they're in, relative to what they were used to before. They just can't seem to get a good government over there... ain't our fault. It always tends toward corruption. Try and try again. If you're really great, and destined for success, then eventually you'll get it.

 

[Elrohir]

Oh, it will still fall somewhere, which leads us to...

...the problem of what happens to the warhead. I believe the most likely outcome, should the system be effective, is that it will blow somewhere near the interception point. Think about the alternatives!
The official propaganda claims the missile will disintegrate and burn in the atmosphere. It deliberately avoids discussing the warhead itself…

What alternatives? Are you suggesting it's better than New York or London or Paris go up in radioactive fire, than to spill a few pounds of uranium over some sleepy Polish hamlet? In the event of a successful interception I'm all for helping clean up the mess where the missile and interceptor falls - but surely having the missile fall unexploded somewhere in the countryside is infinitely better than having millions of civilians killed?

Our missile shield isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

They just can't seem to get a good government over there... ain't our fault.

They have a better government then ours.

 

[ravensfire]

They have a better government then ours.

Maybe if you're from certain African nations or North Korea, but that's about it!

-- Ravensfire

 

[ParkCungHee]

No, I'm in the United States. They have a government thats cleaning up corruption, has successfully surpressed an Islamic insurgency, balanced the budget and repaid their foreign debt. Our government can't handle one of those.

 

[innonimatu]

What alternatives? Are you suggesting it's better than New York or London or Paris go up in radioactive fire, than to spill a few pounds of uranium over some sleepy Polish hamlet?

It that was all... even so, from the Polish POV, it certainly wouldn't be better to have "some sleepy Polish hamlet" (or, if they were unlucky, a major city) receiving a radioactive rain (or something worst) so that NY might be spared...
And what if (thinking of an absurd scenario, but this is the scenario used to justify those interceptors) allegedly north Korean ICBMs (to make thinks more interesting, lest assume they had been launched from a location right next to the coast) crossed Russian space and a polish-based interceptor was lunched to intercept the missile in inside Russian air space? The russians would see incoming Minuteman III missiles, that they might have been told "contained only interceptors", meant to shoot down some "North Korean" missiles. And they would be expected to believe both things? Moreover, they would be expected to accept that "some sleepy Russian village" or some major city it they were unlucky, should risk destruction so that NY might be saved?

Sorry, but this would, by any accounts, be an act of war, and one that the government of any sovereign nation could not simply accept. Some might not have any other choice (read: yes, you can screw the Polish if you want), but Russia would have options...
A "nuclear defense shield" that would end up causing a full-scale nuclear war, what a bright idea.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Not to mention, why the **** would North Korea send the missle the long way around. Neither Iran nor North Korea have missles anywhere near the range to target the United States by firing across Europe.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I wouldn't worry about it, Putin is like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He talks big, but that's all he does.

Let him criticize away, there's plenty to be critical of in his country.

 

[Winner]

Interceptors won't be placed in Great Britain, but Poland, as is currently planned.

We shall see...

Yes, we'll see. As far as I know, Britain is just a backup option.

Oh, it will still fall somewhere, which leads us to...

Most of it burns in the atmosphere and the rest isn't really dangerous.

...the problem of what happens to the warhead. I believe the most likely outcome, should the system be effective, is that it will blow somewhere near the interception point. Think about the alternatives!
The official propaganda claims the missile will disintegrate and burn in the atmosphere. It deliberately avoids discussing the warhead itself…

Sorry, but you just exhibited your lack of knowledge.

Kill vehicle hits the warhead in the midcourse phase of its flight. The warhead is smashed into small pieces, that are not dangerous. These pieces enter the Earth's atmosphere and due to their small size, they burn up.

Well, that begs the question of why, then, would the missiles be installed in Poland...

Simply because it is a better position to launch an interceptor, which is supposed to intercept the Iranian warhead. If the interceptors were positioned in Britain, large parts of Europe would be left unprotected.



(map made by Czech ministry of defense according to the iformation provided by the US - the green area will be protected if the US deploys its NMD base in Central Europe. Yellow line shows the current coverage)

As for the Russians not (over?)reacting, do you want to bet the future of the world on that? Do you know what boosters will be used for the interceptors? Last news I read mentioned using the Minuteman III ICBM. And the interceptor is supposed to include multiple kill vehicles. In other words, It’s exactly the same thing as a nuclear-armed ICBM with MIRV, and that is the only think Russians will be able to know about it.

Sorry, no multiple KV.

Anyway, I see where you're heading. It is not possible nor advantageous for the US. They have enough ICBMs/SLBMs already, there is no point in building another silo in such unfavourable position.

If you don’t believe me, just check the official site of the US Missile Defence Agency. And while you’re at it make sure to read that little excerpt of the National Missile Defense Act of 1999:

Ah, at least now I know where did you get that nonsense that the system is meant to protect the US territor only.

That is not true. The extended system (not planned previously) is meant to protect the US bases and Allies in Europe from possible attacks coming from the Middle East, probably Iran.

Bah…

The purpose is for the US to retain its ability to blackmail other nations.

That's just ideologically biased crap that has nothing to do with reality.

This system should eliminate the possibility, that countries like Iran will use their ballistic missiles for extortion.

The system will not protect Europe. Quite the opposite, by possibly (?) making it more difficult to successfully target the US, it will make retaliation against Europe more attractive. It will make the US more likely to cause military confrontations (less fearful of the consequences), and expose its allies to greater danger.

Totally untrue. I have already explained why.

Note that the system cannot protect Europe. The interceptors being discussed are part of the midcourse defence segment, such interceptors placed in Europe would be useless to defend Europe as they only target missiles in midcourse phase, and missiles aimed at European targets would be in the terminal phase of its flight.

Interceptor is launched few minutes after the enemy missile launch. That means it would intercept the enemy warhead before it reaches terminal phase over Europe.

You simply have a wrong information. The system will protect Europe if completed, that is why we talk about it in the first place.

 

[Winner]

Our missile shield isn't perfect, but it's better than nothing.

That is the most important thing here.

NATO is preparing its own anti-ballistic system, that should protect against different kind of threats (short range missiles). US developed a system that will be effective against medium- and long-range missiles.

We (the West) need such systems in order to remain safe from irrational actors in the international systems.

 

[innonimatu]

Winner, I wrote an answer to your latest post but the browser somehow failed to post it. I'm not bothering to rewrite it, especially because you haven't addressed the problems I had raised.

If you want to believe your government's propaganda about the system and ignore facts, if you want to ignore the problem of reaction times to launch interceptors, the problem of sending missiles over other nation's airspaces, that's your problem and you are free to do it. It's your country at risk, not mine.

 

[Elrohir]

It that was all... even so, from the Polish POV, it certainly wouldn't be better to have "some sleepy Polish hamlet" (or, if they were unlucky, a major city) receiving a radioactive rain (or something worst) so that NY might be spared...
And what if (thinking of an absurd scenario, but this is the scenario used to justify those interceptors) allegedly north Korean ICBMs (to make thinks more interesting, lest assume they had been launched from a location right next to the coast) crossed Russian space and a polish-based interceptor was lunched to intercept the missile in inside Russian air space? The russians would see incoming Minuteman III missiles, that they might have been told "contained only interceptors", meant to shoot down some "North Korean" missiles. And they would be expected to believe both things? Moreover, they would be expected to accept that "some sleepy Russian village" or some major city it they were unlucky, should risk destruction so that NY might be saved?

Sorry, but this would, by any accounts, be an act of war, and one that the government of any sovereign nation could not simply accept. Some might not have any other choice (read: yes, you can screw the Polish if you want), but Russia would have options...
A "nuclear defense shield" that would end up causing a full-scale nuclear war, what a bright idea.

You think that having an unexploded nuclear device fall somewhere in Europe is worse than having it blow up in an American or European city? You'd rather have, at the most ludicrous extreme, that several million Americans or Europeans would die, rather than, at the most extreme, a few hundred Poles die? (Like if the interceptor and intercepted missile both somehow crashed in the middle of a residential district.) You're delusional and have no respect for human life, and have absolutely no credibility in a debate such as this.