NATO Missile Shield
- Thread starter gazzzwp
- Start date
There is no worldwide shield. The USA doesn't have a wall of AEGIS ships protecting its coasts, & anyway, they couldn't stop ICBMs launched from Russia, or SLBMs.
Look at the capabilities of the missiles (what they can shoot down) & where they are placed. Look at how many of them are in the fixed sites. Look at how many AEGIS ships there are, & what their tasks are, apart from missile defence. Think about where they have to be to perform those other tasks. Consider how many will be under refit or repair at any time.
There is a lot of silliness in this thread.
The Romania site is not well positioned to intercept Russian missiles and the VLS complex is rather small.
BMD is a lot more complicated and restricted than some here make it out to be.
The number of BMD capable ships is not that large and they are mostly 3.6 and 4.0 ships that are less capable in this role. Basically Flight IIA Burkes are incapable of BMD currently and those ships with BMD also have other duties.
The Romania site is not well positioned to intercept Russian missiles and the VLS complex is rather small.
BMD is a lot more complicated and restricted than some here make it out to be.
The number of BMD capable ships is not that large and they are mostly 3.6 and 4.0 ships that are less capable in this role. Basically Flight IIA Burkes are incapable of BMD currently and those ships with BMD also have other duties.
Russian politics and Putins ego. Both are intertwined. Putin has domestic problems so he uses the classic ploy of distraction by foreign adventure. And that's as far as the discussion on politics goes.
I think, largely to answer this question, you can take his words at face value.
Just like Putin, I do not buy this argument that because the shield at this stage cannot render Russian nuclear deterrent useless, Russia should not worry about it at all. Such conclusion does not reconcile with common sense.
The fact that certain system undermines country's security only in a limited way so far, does not mean strong opposition to such a system is unwarranted.
In my 30+ years of software development experience I vividly remember how outlandish dreams were turned into prototypes and then into widely available of the shelf technologies. Apparently the dream to render Soviet's and now days Russian missiles useless from the times of R. Reagan's Star Wars, still alive and kicking.
Perhaps another thing to consider is that even w/ the limitations of the current weapon (ie. SM3-1B) in the ashore site, and even the limits as well of the upcoming next iteration (ie. SM3-2A) wrt ICBMs, the site does currently have long range search and track (LRS&T) capability vs ICBMs (ref: see CRS Aegis BMD report, 12/11/15) w/c would allow the site to act as a forward-based mode sensor to detect and track ICBMs.
So perhaps Russia doesn't want to have sites being placed where these sites could be dynamically configured such that the cued search picket area was "looking" in their direction (as opposed to watching some "rouge" state).
So perhaps Russia doesn't want to have sites being placed where these sites could be dynamically configured such that the cued search picket area was "looking" in their direction (as opposed to watching some "rouge" state).
gazzzwp
Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #28
OK. According to RT we now have the real reason for Russia's concerns. The idea was already mooted previously in this thread:
"Every Russian military planner knows the Aegis is not defensive. This is a serious game-changer – as in de-localizing US nuclear capability to Eastern Europe. No wonder Russian President Vladimir Putin had to make it clear Russia would respond “adequately” to any threat to its security".
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/344002-beware-russia-war-us/
This is what the fuss is really all about.
Once again we have to ask the question are Russia's claims justified?
"Every Russian military planner knows the Aegis is not defensive. This is a serious game-changer – as in de-localizing US nuclear capability to Eastern Europe. No wonder Russian President Vladimir Putin had to make it clear Russia would respond “adequately” to any threat to its security".
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/344002-beware-russia-war-us/
This is what the fuss is really all about.
Once again we have to ask the question are Russia's claims justified?
If the facilities and the equipment and personnel are there ... for ballistic missile defence, what is to stop NATO using those for offensive purposes in the future, under the pretext of some future crisis with Russia or another country?
Their future claim will be that they are for deterrence.
Like I said, this is a deliberate, permanent escalation on a grand scale. These bases will never be dislodged from there.
Their future claim will be that they are for deterrence.
Like I said, this is a deliberate, permanent escalation on a grand scale. These bases will never be dislodged from there.
According to that RT article the S500 makes Western ICBMs and stealth aircraft useless. NATO is really just trying to catch up then.
I think the reasoning comes down to two points. First, as ngatimozart said, it's good politics. Putin has based his leadership on being the protector and defender of Russia. Playing on the NATO threat works as well for him as playing the Russian threat works for the West.
Secondly, it restricts Russia's ability to interfere with its Eastern European neighbours at a low enough level to limit Western (or at least US) counter actions. It limits Russia's options at the lower end of the spectrum.
If the Europeans do drop sanctions I could envisge the US military presense in the East would increase. Europe weak/US strong plays well in America and could serve as a rallying cry for America to step up its involvement.
I think the reasoning comes down to two points. First, as ngatimozart said, it's good politics. Putin has based his leadership on being the protector and defender of Russia. Playing on the NATO threat works as well for him as playing the Russian threat works for the West.
Secondly, it restricts Russia's ability to interfere with its Eastern European neighbours at a low enough level to limit Western (or at least US) counter actions. It limits Russia's options at the lower end of the spectrum.
If the Europeans do drop sanctions I could envisge the US military presense in the East would increase. Europe weak/US strong plays well in America and could serve as a rallying cry for America to step up its involvement.
We all appreciate a good joke, but let's keep this serious.
What makes you think that dropping the sanctions would mean a weak Europe? As is the Germans are starting to reverse the post-Cold War trend of reducing their military. Poland has been building up their military, and France and Britain both have large and sophisticated militaries.
I hope you're not referencing that common Russian conspiracy theory that the interceptors will be substituted with IRBMs.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
What sort of foolishness would this be, to establish a fixed base in Romania and/or Poland, with surface to surface missiles with sufficient range to strike targets with strategic value within Russia? Especially when the US has plenty of ICBM's based within the continental US (which means easier to control/secure), or SSBN's and SSGN's, all able to get much closer to mainland Russia prior to launch than either Romania or Poland.
Side note: Just what missile could the US position at such a facility? The US decommissioned the Pershing MRBM's in 1991, which is the US ballistic missile more recently in service that might fit within a silo sized for the GBI. The Trident and Minuteman ICBM's are both much too heavy and large (triple+ the weight, 50% of greater diameter). If the launch unit was smaller, like a Mk 41 VLS, then even the GBI could not fit. That would also limit the offensive missile selection to something like a TacTom LACM. The closest area under Russian control (apart from part of Moldova) to the interceptor site would be the Crimean, ~900 km away I believe. Rostov on Don, the closest large city in mainland Russia, is ~1,300 km away. That is basically the extent of what could be reached. If the US wished to conduct a first strike upon southern Russia around the Black Sea using LACM, it would likely have much better success sending in an Arleigh Burke-class DDG or two, which could get relatively close to shore. The subsonic LACM's would take 1+ hrs to reach targets in the Crimean from Romania, whereas a launch from a DDG in international waters could reach targets within a few minutes.
In a nutshell, arguing that the positions could/would be used for offensive weapons aimed at Russia is the province of conspiracy theorists, and/or those who lack critical thinking skills. The US has better positions/delivery methods for offensive weaponry which would trigger a nuclear response, targeting Russia than either Romania or Poland.
The USA does not have any IRBMs, so it would have to design, develop, & build them first.
The infrastructure put in place for the missile interceptors would not be useful for IRBMs. The radars would be irrelevant, & I wouldn't try to design a new IRBM limited by being able to fit into SM3 launchers. Nor would I put IRBMs in fixed launchers.
The infrastructure put in place for the missile interceptors would not be useful for IRBMs. The radars would be irrelevant, & I wouldn't try to design a new IRBM limited by being able to fit into SM3 launchers. Nor would I put IRBMs in fixed launchers.
Like TodJaeger stated, these are MK41 VLS tubes. Nothing's larger than a TLAM may be fitted inside. Period.
There are only 24 VLS at the station. They will be fitted with SM-2s for. Ow and could eventually be upgraded to the SM-3.
These sites are NOT offensive. They're designed for very limited protection against any attempt from a State like Iran from lobbing a MRBM into a NATO nation
IMO, Putin works to enhance his nationalistic support by playing up this as a threat to Russia when clearly to the informed in simply is not
Isn't the mark 41 vls able to launch the tomahawk irbms? Or is that a conspiracy theory. Am I missing something here?