Russia to point Nukes at Europe

[FishGuy]

If the US go ahead with their missile defence plans.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6717119.stm
Hardly seems fair on the Europeans.

[Lord Orwell]

If the US go ahead with their missile defence plans.

Hardly seems fair on the Europeans.

Nuclear missiles have an effective range of anywhere on earth. It is pointless to say they are "pointing" them anywhere when in effect they are already pointed everywhere. The cuban missile crisis was a bunch of BS for example because at that any time they and we both (u.s.) have nuclear submarines with suborbital missiles on board hidden off the coasts of wherever the hell we feel like putting them at that particular time. And we did back then, too. USSR (now russia) at that time had more Submarines than the total naval fleet the US had. How many of them were less than 50 miles from our coast at that time (the range of Cuba)? How many are right now?

[wossname]

"Pointing at" implies that a firing solution has been calculated and contingencies are in place to intercept/pre-empt any retaliatory action.

Personally I love Russia and I always have done.

[homer13j]

Didn't we have this exact same argument in 1985 or so?

[MasterBlaster]

Hardly seems fair on the Europeans.

Why The europeans already have nukes pointed at Russia. Russia already has nukes pointed at european countries. These ones will just get there a bit faster.

[Shaggy Hiker]

This is a non-issue raised by the rooskies to get attention.

[Lord Orwell]

i am sure with gps tracking and modern processing (pentium iv) they could come up with a firing solution pretty speedy.

[sevenhalo]

I am sure with gps tracking and modern processing (pentium iv)...

This is getting bookmarked so that I may laugh at it in 5 years.

[Lord Orwell]

i was going to put a reference to our space shuttles travelling outerspace running on vic-20s

[jermaine]

Russia, Iran, Iraq, North Korea vs. USA, Britain, (maybe Isreal) who you got??????????????????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why cant we all just get along?

[Lord Orwell]

Because war is big business. It is most of the economy. When world war one ended- Depression. When WW2 ended- Depression. Korea-Recession etc.

[sevenhalo]

It is most of the economy

And also most of the economy's short-comings and failures.

If you run out of money in your checking account; getting a credit card doesn't make you financially stable again.

[homer13j]

When WW2 ended- Depression

Well, I guess I missed that one. That depression must have only happened in Indiana

[Lord Orwell]

I missed that one too since i wasn't born yet. Exactly how old are you? 70?

[mendhak]

It may come as a surprise to me, but Russia does have a right to self defense.

[Lord Orwell]

yes they do. And pointing missiles at you is defense. While installing a missile-proof shield is offensive (according to Putin)

[FunkyDexter]

The missile shield is offensive because it destabilises the equilibrium which is the keystone of a MAD defence. The whole basis of a MAD defence is that your oponnent cannot attack you because it will inevitably lead to his own destruction. If you remove his ability to destroy you in response you effectively position yourself as the agressor in a cold war (n.b. not THE cold war). For that reason I think it's a policy the US shouldn't pursue.

If you look at a map you can understand why the Russians might think the missile shield is 'aimed' at them rather than Iran or Korea. Have you looked at where Poland and Czeckoslovakia are on a map?

But with that said, Putin's threat seems utterly hollow to me and is almost certainly just grandstanding. 30 years ago Russia was the leader of an isolated and self sufficient communist super-state. Today Russia is utterly dependent on trade with Europe. So Putin can point his missiles wherever the hell he likes, it won't make one iota of difference to American foreign policy.

[Xanith]

The missile shield is offensive because it destabilises the equilibrium which is the keystone of a MAD defence. The whole basis of a MAD defence is that your oponnent cannot attack you because it will inevitably lead to his own destruction. If you remove his ability to destroy you in response you effectively position yourself as the agressor in a cold war (n.b. not THE cold war). For that reason I think it's a policy the US shouldn't pursue.

If you look at a map you can understand why the Russians might think the missile shield is 'aimed' at them rather than Iran or Korea. Have you looked at where Poland and Czeckoslovakia are on a map?

But with that said, Putin's threat seems utterly hollow to me and is almost certainly just grandstanding. 30 years ago Russia was the leader of an isolated and self sufficient communist super-state. Today Russia is utterly dependent on trade with Europe. So Putin can point his missiles wherever the hell he likes, it won't make one iota of difference to American foreign policy.

The missile defense shield is designed to only shoot down a small number of missiles that have been fired. It is not a system to destroy the massive amounts of missiles that Russia could easily shoot at Europe and destroy it 1000x over. Therefore it doesn’t upset any of the balance of MAD.

The reason to build the shield in Poland and Czechoslovakia is that Old Europe would likely not allow such a shield to be built on their soil. I can’t imagine countries like Germany or France allowing such a thing to be built on their soil, even if it was for their own protection.

Remember that Europe is also dependant on Russia and their vast supplies of Oil and Gas, especially Finland who imports 70% of its energy needs from Russia. By 2030 Europe will need to import 70% of its energy needs with a substantial portion coming from Russia. With over 60% of Russia’s GDP coming from energy (and half of all its energy exports going to Europe) you could say that Russia and Europe are dependant on each other.

This is why Putin’s bluster can easily be discounted. He knows the shield cannot stop a Russian attack, and he knows destroying Europe would likely bankrupt Russia. It would be like killing your best customer and the source of most of your income.

X

[mendhak]

You can argue it from every single angle, it's all about media presentation in the end. It's alright for India to have nukes, but not for Iran to even touch Uranium. It's alright for the US to install a missile shield on foreign soil, but not alright for Russia to point missiles at Europe.

It's alright to spend £400,000 on the London 2012 logo... no, no, no... that's not alright.

[nemaroller]

Remember that Europe is also dependant on Russia and their vast supplies of Oil and Gas

I was just going to throw that in - good coverage.

It'salright for the US to install a missile shield on foreign soil, but not alright for Russia to point missiles at Europe

Seriously, I never discounted Russia didn't always have missiles pointing at Europe or even the US - so why the recent grandstanding? Did the Russians really reprogram all their ICBM's to point at Antartica back in the 90's? I doubt that.

[Lord Orwell]

And let's not forget Putin just said the missiles they are testing are designed to avoid missile defense systems. Besides how are you going to shoot down a suborbital missile when it isn't even in the atmosphere until it is directly over the target? I don't know about Russia but the US Minuteman Rockets were designed to do just this and the cone separated into multiple different warheads. I forget the exact number but i think it was 15. We in fact signed an agreement with USSR to only keep 3 warheads installed on each one. If it takes 15 missiles to shoot down one incoming one, guess what? Eventually one is going to get through. And one of the big warheads can devastate an area the size of texas. So fifty warheads (not missiles) is enough to say Bye Bye U.S. (and about 100 to counterattack and flatten Russia)

[mendhak]

I was just going to throw that in - good coverage.



Seriously, I never discounted Russia didn't always have missiles pointing at Europe or even the US - so why the recent grandstanding? Did the Russians really reprogram all their ICBM's to point at Antartica back in the 90's? I doubt that.

Ah your point there. I've often noticed that countries going "weak" often need to stir up something in the world news arena. It helps work their people up into a frenzy and "unite" them, even temporarily. Remember when the British soldiers were captured by Iran?

I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's happening in Russia right now. Uniting behind a leader.

[Lord Orwell]

snip

[capsulecorpjx]

Nuclear missiles have an effective range of anywhere on earth. It is pointless to say they are "pointing" them anywhere when in effect they are already pointed everywhere. The cuban missile crisis was a bunch of BS for example because at that any time they and we both (u.s.) have nuclear submarines with suborbital missiles on board hidden off the coasts of wherever the hell we feel like putting them at that particular time. And we did back then, too. USSR (now russia) at that time had more Submarines than the total naval fleet the US had. How many of them were less than 50 miles from our coast at that time (the range of Cuba)? How many are right now?

Very true, Russia's act is more raising a giant middle finger at the U.S. and Europe.

[Lord Orwell]

well the good news is it was all a ploy by Putin. He wants our missile defense for himself. He told the US and Bush that we can install it if we put it in one of the former soviet countries. And US is thinking about it! that placement will put all of europe under the defense shield.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The missile defense shield is designed to only shoot down a small number of missiles that have been fired. It is not a system to destroy the massive amounts of missiles that Russia could easily shoot at Europe and destroy it 1000x over. Therefore it doesn’t upset any of the balance of MAD.

My only concern with that is if somebody is dumb enough to think the missile shield will work. At this point, it is doubtful whether it will work against anybody, let alone Russia. However, if it makes some idiot feel invulnerable...that could cause trouble.

This is why Putin’s bluster can easily be discounted. He knows the shield cannot stop a Russian attack, and he knows destroying Europe would likely bankrupt Russia. It would be like killing your best customer and the source of most of your income.

X

I agree with everything else you said, but I would caution that your last line there was the exact argument used to assert that there would be no more wars....back around 1910. Boy were they wrong! The theory was that all the countries of Europe were too financially interdependent, so nobody would ever dare start a war. I think we should be forever suspicious of anybody asserting that mankind will do whatever is in their best interest.

[Shaggy Hiker]

well the good news is it was all a ploy by Putin. He wants our missile defense for himself. He told the US and Bush that we can install it if we put it in one of the former soviet countries. And US is thinking about it! that placement will put all of europe under the defense shield.

That's like installing version 1.0 of anything Microsoft has ever produced.

I always thought the Russians were smarter than that.

[Lord Orwell]

this is good though. since it is our shield, if we ever want to bomb anyone we can just turn it off at the last second.

[nemaroller]

this is good though. since it is our shield, if we ever want to bomb anyone we can just turn it off at the last second.

Or get bombed by someone else.

I guess the real reason Putin was upset was because the missiles would be placed in the Czech republic. The fact that they could 'easily' be turned into offensive weapons against Russia concerned him.

At least now with them being based in a Russian military base, they can make sure rebels or covert intelligence operations by their enemies don't compromise them.

[Lord Orwell]

i really don't know why they insist on using missiles anyway. The us navy has an automatic system on their ships called CIWS (close-in weapon system) that shoots missiles down with 50 caliber bullets.

[Shaggy Hiker]

i really don't know why they insist on using missiles anyway. The us navy has an automatic system on their ships called CIWS (close-in weapon system) that shoots missiles down with 50 caliber bullets.

And when it doesn't?

The thing is not 100% against missiles.

[Lord Orwell]

you don't think so? I've fired it myself. I saw one malfunction one time and fire only one bullet (it fires 4500 a minute) and it shot the missile down.
Another time it was to shoot a drone missile being towed by a plane and after it was through pulverizing the missile it proceeded to shoot up the tow rope and was about 1/2 way to the tow plane before they managed to shut it off. It is a completely autonomous system that tracks its own bullets with radar and makes automatic corrections. And the entire system is cheaper than one Patriot missile.

[Shaggy Hiker]

It's a good system, I've heard about it for years. The thing is, it is a fallible system, you just have to exceed its tolerance....like everything else. Now, in the case of an anti-ship missile, this can be a minor thing (all you lose is a ship or two...and a few hundred or thousand people, small stuff in a war), but when you talk about the kinds of stakes in ICBM warfare, the penalty for failure goes up by a few orders of magnitude. Multiple warheads and decoys are all current technology. What happens if you miss just one? A few million dead? A city destroyed? All the loss of infrastructure, long term, delayed losses, etc.?

When you have too many targets, what will the system do, shoot down as many as it can, or fall into indecision and shoot down few or none? The risk in a nuclear game is too high, but if you give people a system that will work against a few tests, it might lure some idiots into thinking that they are now invulnerable, and history shows us that countries that think they are invulnerable, behave badly.

MAD stood for Mutually Assured Destruction. If one side felt that their destruction was NOT assured, they might try something preemptive (the US would NEVER do that....except for when we have). If they do, they better be darn sure they are right about being safe, or the destruction will be overwhelming.

[Lord Orwell]

yeah. Read the quote in my signature (the current one)

[FunkyDexter]

That's a good quote I'll have to remember it.

On a technical point, ICBM's don't explode on impact, they explode in the atmoshpere. Is that system effective at the range that would be required to take out an ICBM before it explodes?

edit> Where did your skull come from?

[nemaroller]

Is that system effective at the range that would be required to take out an ICBM before it explodes?

From what I read on the Net - it doesn't seem it would be applicable or even plausible it would be effective in destroying missiles 60,000 feet in the atmosphere. I imagine it could destroy flocks of birds in seconds though.

[Lord Orwell]

you people have never heard of a Rail Gun?
One of the original "star wars" plans included mounting rail guns on mountain sides capable of shooting bullets into space. An alternate (and more sensible) plan had them mounting guns on sattelites. Think about it. Which can you put more of on a sattelite: Bullets or missiles?

[nemaroller]

Oh yeah - forgot about the satellite platform.

I wonder how they would take into consideration space missions once the rail gun litters the low Earth orbit with thousands of projectiles? They'd have to wait weeks or months until the projectiles fell and burned up into the atmosphere - or risk one of those things floating into the shuttles.

[Shaggy Hiker]

From what I read on the Net - it doesn't seem it would be applicable or even plausible it would be effective in destroying missiles 60,000 feet in the atmosphere. I imagine it could destroy flocks of birds in seconds though.

Yeah, some hunters tried it on ducks out here, but we decided that there wasn't enough left to determine the species.

There were lots of ideas kicked around for ICBM shields. They are all just theoretical at this point. The ones that are being tested are being thrown softballs, and are striking out at an unacceptable rate. Right now, missile defense should be considered in this way: If one has already been fired, you might as well give it a try.

[Lord Orwell]

Oh yeah - forgot about the satellite platform.

I wonder how they would take into consideration space missions once the rail gun litters the low Earth orbit with thousands of projectiles? They'd have to wait weeks or months until the projectiles fell and burned up into the atmosphere - or risk one of those things floating into the shuttles.

I imagine they would have escape velocity at that altitude. I would be more concerned about the thrust knocking the platform out of orbit. But i suppose additude jets could compisate for some of it.