View Full Version : Russia says it could pre-emptively strike missile shield
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/03/us-nato-missiles-idUSBRE84217720120503
I'm very worried about these recent developments, any thoughts on the matter?
Die Neue Zeit
4th May 2012, 15:30
That's old news. The old Soviet arsenal was big enough to overwhelm any "Star Wars" project, despite the Soviet leadership's paranoia. There's strength in numbers.
Dire Helix
4th May 2012, 16:00
No worries here. This rhetoric is meant for domestic consumption. Without empty threats and sabre-rattling the regime in Kremlin would lose a great deal of support among the patriotic-minded part of the populace.
That's old news. The old Soviet arsenal was big enough to overwhelm any "Star Wars" project, despite the Soviet leadership's paranoia. There's strength in numbers.
Overwhelming missile shields is not hard, even China can do that. Currently missile intercept system are only at best 15%, so out of 100 missiles they will likely only hit 15 of them and that is without the ICBMs having countermeasures like balloon warheads to increase the number of targets and chaff to make it harder for the missiles to lock on.
Update:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/04/us-nato-russia-shield-idUSTRE8430Z020120504
Really even though Russia can overwhelm any missile shield, the threat is still real. There is no way for Russia to know the missile shield won't be armed with nuclear warheads thus from a military standpoint its only logical option is to react by deploying short range nuclear missiles aimed at Poland with standing orders to fire their nukes at Poland as soon as they see any launch from Poland so Russian short range misses don't get destroyed by what could nuclear missiles from Poland. Then Moscow would also have to put its entire nuclear arsenal on a hair trigger since either way nuking Poland would require Russia committing and try to win a full scale nuclear war against NATO.
Really even though Russia can overwhelm any missile shield, the threat is still real. There is no way for Russia to know the missile shield won't be armed with nuclear warheads thus from a military standpoint its only logical option is to react by deploying short range nuclear missiles aimed at Poland with standing orders to fire their nukes at Poland as soon as they see any launch from Poland so Russian short range misses don't get destroyed by what could nuclear missiles from Poland.
Which shows how unlikely the scenario is.
Then Moscow would also have to put its entire nuclear arsenal on a hair trigger since either way nuking Poland would require Russia committing and try to win a full scale nuclear war against NATO.
Slightly off topic, it's scary that most world leaders have no oversight that nuclear war will cause a mass extinction event which is why those weapons should never have been invented in the first place and their already in the hands of man men (The Capitalists).
Which shows how unlikely the scenario is.
It's scary that most world leaders have no oversight that nuclear war will cause a mass extinction event which is why those weapons should never have been invented and their already in the hands of man men (The Capitalists).
Well theoretically humanity would survive just not many as the planet would only support very few humans after a full scale nuclear exchange. This is why massive nuclear bunkers were built so the military bureaucracy could survive a nuclear strike, of course I doubt the grunt troops stationed in the bunkers would be very loyal to the military bureaucracy after a nuclear strike.
Of course the living standards of even those that survive would be horrid so yhea it is pretty stupid.
Sinister Cultural Marxist
4th May 2012, 23:10
Well theoretically humanity would survive just not many as the planet would only support very few humans after a full scale nuclear exchange. This is why massive nuclear bunkers were built so the military bureaucracy could survive a nuclear strike, of course I doubt the grunt troops stationed in the bunkers would be very loyal to the military bureaucracy after a nuclear strike.
Of course the living standards of even those that survive would be horrid so yhea it is pretty stupid.
The secret, as our friend Dr Strangelove indicates, is to fill our nuclear bunkers with women at a 10:1 ratio ... you know, for repopulating the earth :rolleyes: it would help to deal with both of those issues.
Of course the living standards of even those that survive would be horrid so yhea it is pretty stupid.
Not only stupid but also scary and it's beyond belief that their insanely suicidal enough to do it. They should have better senses than that (of course we have the MAD doctrine as well). Of course, this is all sabre rattling after all.
Also back on topic, it is said that the NATO missile shield is intended for Nuclear strikes from Iran and North Korea, do you think this missile shield is doomed to fail anyways?
Not only stupid but also scary and it's beyond belief that their suicidal enough to do it. They should have better senses to do that (of course we have the MAD doctrine as well).
Also back on topic, it is said that the NATO missile shield is intended for Nuclear strikes from Iran and North Korea, do you think this missile shield is doomed to fail anyways?
Iran and North Korea has no capability of launch a missile into Europe.
Yet with intercepting missiles with other missiles, all the satellites looking a Poland would see the heat signature of a missile, and shortly later radar stations will confirm there is fast moving objects about where the satellites see the heat. The Russian military won't have much time to rationally react to missiles launching from Poland, if it a first strike they have to quickly launch everything at NATO so the missiles won't be destroyed in their silos.
Yet with intercepting missiles with other missiles, all the satellites looking a Poland would see the heat signature of a missile, and shortly later radar stations will confirm there is fast moving objects about where the satellites see the heat. The Russian military won't have much time to rationally react to missiles launching from Poland, if it a first strike they have to quickly launch everything at NATO so the missiles won't be destroyed in their silos.
Of course what is the likelihood of this scenario described happening? Well it's very unlikely that NATO will fire a missile at Russia (let alone none of the missiles will be fired according to their original purpose against Iranian/North Korean nukes) also since Iran and North Korea doesn't have the capacity to fire a nuclear missile at Europe then why is NATO even bothering putting a missile shield at the border at all? Is this the product of western fears and their doing it "Just in case" (as in preparing for future events based on their fears) or West relies on their own mainstream media and falsified intelligence and they don't even know that Iran and North Korea doesn't have that capacity (in short: A product of irrational fears?)?.
Another thing I've been worrying about is the possible war with Iran from a (hopefully un)likely Israeli strike and will it effect this situation?
Of course what is the likelihood of this scenario described happening? Well it's very unlikely that NATO will fire a missile at Russia
The Georgian conflict started down the road as during the conflict Russia made preparations to use tactical nukes against NATO troops in Georgia if they become hostile. It was a possibility that if NATO decided to get involve in the Georgian conflict that it would have ended with a full scale nuclear exchange between NATO and Russia.
also since Iran and North Korea doesn't have the capacity to fire a nuclear missile at Europe then why is NATO even bothering putting a missile shield at the border at all? Is this the product of western fears and their doing it "Just in case" (as in preparing for future events based on their fears) or West relies on their own mainstream media and falsified intelligence and they don't even know that Iran and North Korea doesn't have that capacity (in short: A product of irrational fears?)?.
It is Regan's Star Wars revisited, NATO is actually trying to position itself in a better position to go to war with Russia as NATO encase there is a war with Russia since Russian imperialism is at odds with US imperialism.
Another thing I've been worrying about is the possible war with Iran from a (hopefully un)likely Israeli strike and will it effect this situation?
The Middle East is far enough away that Russia has enough time to confirm where the missiles are going.
Bostana
5th May 2012, 00:42
I think its funny on how all these Imperialist countries say they 'might' have to launch a 'pre-emtpive' strike for 'self defense'
I mean Seriously!?
They try so hard to justify these useless invasions, bombings, and killing of innocent just so they can get away with doing what ever the fuck they want. And most of the world believes that Shit
I guess it goes back that we should really abandon the term "Cold War" and just call it inter imperialist conflicts as described in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cold-war-all-t169676/index.html?t=169676).
Well here's a info I found about Nuclear War effects maybe exaggerated.
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/82jpr.html
I guess it means if a Nuclear War really broke out in this case I think it would be a regional strategic nuclear war perhaps and maybe not as completely catastrophic we would imagine (as in nuking cities and such)? As in low yard war and not a high yard shit fest as wars were fought in the past?
I guess it goes back that we should really abandon the term "Cold War" and just call it inter imperialist conflicts as described in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cold-war-all-t169676/index.html?t=169676).
Well here's a info I found about Nuclear War effects maybe exaggerated.
http://www.bmartin.cc/pubs/82jpr.html
I guess it means if a Nuclear War really broke out, it would actually mean the end of the Industrial Empire era.
The problem is the above ignores we can't support that many people without industrialization especially if we need to deal with fallout and how fallout spreads. Radiation from Chernobyl spread around the entire globe while the area around Chernobyl still has a lethal dose of fallout and that is after the reactor was entombed. The clean up of Chernobyl bankrupted the USSR at a huge cost to the clean up workers which most later died from radiation poisoning and that was just one site.
With a global nuclear war you'd have Chernobyl's all over the industrial world mostly from nuclear reactors melting down as a result that reactors are not engineered to withstand the blast from near by nuclear warheads also EMP blasts will cause computers on all reactors to shutdown with shutting down the reactor, meaning operators will be blind to what is going on with the reactor and safeties dependent on the computer will be non-functional.
If you include all the nuclear reactors melting down at the same time you are talking a very lethal dose of ration being spewed into the atmosphere. But then there is the risk of chemical stockpiles getting released in water and the atmosphere as fires spread, chemical weapon being a huge risk to water supplies.
Geiseric
5th May 2012, 02:41
is there going to be a single safe region or several smaller ones that are akin to oasis in a desert?
The problem is the above ignores we can't support that many people without industrialization especially if we need to deal with fallout and how fallout spreads. Radiation from Chernobyl spread around the entire globe while the area around Chernobyl still has a lethal dose of fallout and that is after the reactor was entombed. The clean up of Chernobyl bankrupted the USSR at a huge cost to the clean up workers which most later died from radiation poisoning and that was just one site.
With a global nuclear war you'd have Chernobyl's all over the industrial world mostly from nuclear reactors melting down as a result that reactors are not engineered to withstand the blast from near by nuclear warheads also EMP blasts will cause computers on all reactors to shutdown with shutting down the reactor, meaning operators will be blind to what is going on with the reactor and safeties dependent on the computer will be non-functional.
If you include all the nuclear reactors melting down at the same time you are talking a very lethal dose of ration being spewed into the atmosphere. But then there is the risk of chemical stockpiles getting released in water and the atmosphere as fires spread, chemical weapon being a huge risk to water supplies.
Sounds like the biggest environmental catastrophe ever, although I could be previously right that it could be the end of Industrial Imperialism. Well looking what happened at the BP Oil Spill and Fukushuma disaster which shows how much capitalism cares about our environment anyways since in the end it only matters to them not everyone else...
Anyway the main point though when Russia when starts making these threats, what is the likelihood of nuclear war happening in the future and is this something we should take very seriously or is it just sabre rattling? Although it's likely NATO would change their plans in the future or they could make deal with Russia though (although once again we can't expect two imperialist blocks to trust each other but in the end I don't think anybody wants a Nuclear War.).
is there going to be a single safe region or several smaller ones that are akin to oasis in a desert?
Australia would be best off, being industrialized and not really a target.
Sounds like the biggest environmental catastrophe ever, although I could be previously right that it could be the end of Industrial Imperialism. Well looking what happened at the BP Oil Spill and Fukushuma disaster which shows how much capitalism cares about our environment anyways since in the end it only matters to them not everyone else...
Anyway the main point though when Russia when starts making these threats, what is the likelihood of nuclear war happening in the future and is this something we should take very seriously or is it just sabre rattling? Although it's likely NATO would change their plans in the future or they could make deal with Russia though (although once again we can't expect two imperialist blocks to trust each other but in the end I don't think anybody wants a Nuclear War.).
Neither side wants a nuclear war but if the other side launched a nuclear strike both side would retaliate. This is the problem, the logic of nuclear war concludes to a end that the ruling class doesn't want but the ruling class refuses to abandon nuclear war in fear of the other nuclear powers.
piet11111
6th May 2012, 11:07
Combine the pentagon plan of prompt global strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike
And you have a first strike weapon that could take out most of any country's ICBM's except for their submarine based missiles and the road mobile ones.
Any left over missiles then would have to get around the American ABM shield.
This whole deal is to make a nuclear first strike viable for the Americans and that is troubling to say the least.
svenne
6th May 2012, 14:57
Combine the pentagon plan of prompt global strike https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_Global_Strike
And you have a first strike weapon that could take out most of any country's ICBM's except for their submarine based missiles and the road mobile ones.
Any left over missiles then would have to get around the American ABM shield.
This whole deal is to make a nuclear first strike viable for the Americans and that is troubling to say the least.
That just doesn't seem plausible. Firstly, the prompt global strike has to take out the opposing sides (let's use Russia as example, as that's the subject of the thread) ground-based nuclear forces in one strike, and fast enough to not give the Russians a chance to fire them. Since Russia has a lot of missile silos, the US would have to firstly build and deploy a lot of these futuristic weapons, and secondly, deploy them in an offensive position - which most propably would put the russian silos in preparation for an attack. And since the missiles still would be launched somewhat conventionally, the russians propably would use their nukes even before the US! This doesn't even include possible russian countermeasures, which they surely are developing in this moment.
Ergo, the destruction of mankind and civilization as we know it.
If you instead attack smaller countries like North Korea or Iran with these weapons, it all seems plausible. They could possibly even destroy Chinas nucelar weapons - but that would mean an economic collapse which would make todays crisis look like the good ol' 60s...
piet11111
6th May 2012, 18:07
Russia is closer to the Americans then the middle east so it would take them 30-45 minutes to cover the entire Russian landmass with their new missiles.
Now that is assuming that the missiles are detected at the exact moment of launch and that the Russians will be quick enough to verify what is going on before they alert their president to authorize a nuclear response in time.
A successful nuclear first strike from the Americans does not seem very unlikely to me unless the Russians put their arsenal on a hairpin trigger and that is not something to cheer for either as that would massively increase the odds for mistakes.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2020 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.