Whats everyone take on the European missile shield?

[Comrade69]

All I got to say is I don't get it. Is Russia that much of a threat??

They really haven't threatened Europe since the cold war, and the only conflicts they been involved with after that is their own and the south ossetia thing. So now all the sudden US&NATO want to put up a missile shield defending them from Russia.


Honestly this is not my county vs your country(im an American citizen btw) thread but I just kinda want to know why......


If I was the US I would put up a missile sheild in pacific Asia against North Korea if anywhere...

 

[Feanor]

The missile shield isn't directed against Russia, and can't possibly stop the Russian missile arsenal, not to mention it's poorly positioned to do so. It's directed against third world states (global south) with long-range/inter-continental BM capacity.

Russia is throwing a tantrum over it because they don't like the general vector of military development that is forming: shrinking strategic arsenals with proliferation of BMD technology.

 

[STURM]

They really haven't threatened Europe since the cold war, and the only conflicts they been involved with after that is their own and the south ossetia thing. So now all the sudden US&NATO want to put up a missile shield defending them from Russia.

Unless I'm mistaken, the whole idea of the shield is due to fears that a country like Iran may in the future have the capability to lob missiles at Europe. Just why in the first place Iran or any other Middle Eastern country might want to lob missiles at Europe, if un-attacked by the West, and risk massive retaliation is something nobody has yet to explain yet.....

 

[rip]

All I got to say is I don't get it. Is Russia that much of a threat??

They really haven't threatened Europe since the cold war, and the only conflicts they been involved with after that is their own and the south ossetia thing. So now all the sudden US&NATO want to put up a missile shield defending them from Russia.


Honestly this is not my county vs your country(im an American citizen btw) thread but I just kinda want to know why......


If I was the US I would put up a missile sheild in pacific Asia against North Korea if anywhere...

The idea behind the shield is primarily a political one. Since if only one nuclear weapon succeeding in hitting just one large city would create such unacceptable loss of life, if the the treat is made by a country with a reputation of having unstable perhaps even insane leadership elements, just a few missiles will hold hostage and paralyze the leadership of other countries. As a practical matter no conceivable missile shield could stop all of the weapons from a major power like Russia and trying to do so would be a waste of time and money.

But if the potential threat comes from a power that only has a few weapons and those are of dubious quality, then it adds a level of uncertainty to the credibility of that threat no matter how insane they may be and a nation having such a shield will achieve freedom of action once again. Politically that additional level of uncertainly if the threat can in fact be cared out or not frees the county that has the shield to then act as it would have otherwise. This is true it the shield really works or not. As long as the threating nation thinks it might work, and the shielded nation acts as if it would work, that is enough.

 

[Comrade69]

i understand what you guys are saying how its aimed at the middle east but im not buying it...there's a reason the US cant give Russia a guarantee its not aimed at them


[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqCB52sIUHo&feature=feedu"]‪Missile system aimed at Russia? 'US can't guarantee it's not'‬‏ - YouTube[/nomedia]

this Russian political figure(i don't know his role)

makes a good point where he basically says why are they putting one of them in Poland right next to Russian missile strategic launch site and no one can answer that question for them(3:00 min mark)

if the threat is south why are they putting one of the shields way up north extremely close to Russia..?

 

[My2Cents]

i understand what you guys are saying how its aimed at the middle east but im not buying it...there's a reason the US cant give Russia a guarantee its not aimed at them

‪Missile system aimed at Russia? 'US can't guarantee it's not'‬‏ - YouTube

this Russian political figure(i don't know his role)

makes a good point where he basically says why are they putting one of them in Poland right next to Russian missile strategic launch site and no one can answer that question for them(3:00 min mark)

if the threat is south why are they putting one of the shields way up north extremely close to Russia..?

Ballistics and the ‘kill chain’. Think about how a ballistic missile [BM] and the ABM system work.

Unless you know in advance when a BM is going to launch, the BM is going to be a considerable way down range from the launch point before the ABM system can launch. You have to detect the missile launch, track and classify it (you do not want to shoot down a civilian satellite launch, but probably cannot tell the difference until the second stage is finished), prep the missile, and launch. Then you have the flight time to get to the BM.

If you start too close to the launcher you will end up in a tail-chase to catch the BM. Since the BM will have a sizable lead the ABM would need a large delta-V advantage, i.e. fuel. In fact the ABM would probably have to be several times larger than the missile it is trying to catch.

Next you have the warhead. The Russians use large fragmentation warheads (and possibly nukes) on their ABMs. The US uses a kinetic kill vehicle which requires it to attack the ballistic missile from the forward hemisphere to generate relative velocities (and impact energy) sufficient to destroy the target. In any case, the best way to intercept the BM is to launch from ahead of it, probably at least 2/3 the way to the target, so that the BM is coming to the ABM rather than running away.

As for why the ABM system is planned for Poland, Russia threats scared off all the countries which would have been better sites. Someplace farther south and a little west would probably have been better, but the Black Sea is too close to Iran to make a good site using Navy ships (which is why it is no longer being discussed).

 

[surpreme]

All I got to say is I don't get it. Is Russia that much of a threat??

They really haven't threatened Europe since the cold war, and the only conflicts they been involved with after that is their own and the south ossetia thing. So now all the sudden US&NATO want to put up a missile shield defending them from Russia.


Honestly this is not my county vs your country(im an American citizen btw) thread but I just kinda want to know why......


If I was the US I would put up a missile sheild in pacific Asia against North Korea if anywhere...

The missile shield is a good defense for Europe. I personally dont think there a problem with having it. It will help Europe with much needed defense against Russia or other nations. From a defense point of view its the right thing to do.

 

[Comrade69]

The missile shield is a good defense for Europe. I personally dont think there a problem with having it. It will help Europe with much needed defense against Russia or other nations. From a defense point of view its the right thing to do.

against Russsia? thats what I dont get why do they need defense from them their not hostile to any countries in Europe

 

[My2Cents]

The missile shield is a good defense for Europe. I personally dont think there a problem with having it. It will help Europe with much needed defense against Russia or other nations. From a defense point of view its the right thing to do.

The point of the missile shield is to keep Iran from making Europe a political hostage with a couple of nuclear tipped missiles. It is far too small a system to be more than a speed-bump for the Russian arsenal and poorly located.

against Russsia? thats what I dont get why do they need defense from them their not hostile to any countries in Europe

As I said, the missile shield is not an effective defense against Russia.

As for “their not hostile to any countries in Europe” -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, the Ukraine, Poland, and Georgia might beg to differ.

 

[Feanor]

The point of the missile shield is to keep Iran from making Europe a political hostage with a couple of nuclear tipped missiles. It is far too small a system to be more than a speed-bump for the Russian arsenal and poorly located.

As I said, the missile shield is not an effective defense against Russia.

As for “their not hostile to any countries in Europe” -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, the Ukraine, Poland, and Georgia might beg to differ.

Belarus and Ukraine aren't really on that list.

 

[Comrade69]

The point of the missile shield is to keep Iran from making Europe a political hostage with a couple of nuclear tipped missiles. It is far too small a system to be more than a speed-bump for the Russian arsenal and poorly located.

As I said, the missile shield is not an effective defense against Russia.

As for “their not hostile to any countries in Europe” -- Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, the Ukraine, Poland, and Georgia might beg to differ.

Russia did nothing to those countries in the past decade(unless im wrong)

and Georgia was just playing stupid. Everyone was minding their own business and they out of now where just decide to attack an area protected by Russia....

thats like Cuba launching a full strike against Porto Rico and expecting the US to do nothing..

And im still not buying it as a defense against middle east. first off is there any proof that Iraq/Iran have nuclear capabilities.....and to go 1 step further do they even have a deliverance system thats been tested?

 

[Feanor]

Iran has medium-range ballistic missiles, and will likely develop intercontinental ones within the next decade or two, so the move is pre-emptive, but against a real threat.

 

[artstyle]

previously russia came forward to jointly dovelope the "missile shield"", but latter it was not agreed by u.s and nato, if the so called missile shield was not directed against russia then why other nations hasn't agreed,


:jump2








*****forgive if i am wrong,its my 1st **********8

 

[My2Cents]

previously russia came forward to jointly dovelope the "missile shield"", but latter it was not agreed by u.s and nato, if the so called missile shield was not directed against russia then why other nations hasn't agreed,

:jump2

Russia insisted that the system be on their territory (good – they are better located) and under their control, i.e. if a political crisis developed if a political crisis developed involving the USA or NATO, the Russian could play hardball by threatening to shutdown the system (unacceptable).

They are still trying to get that control, see http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/missiles-wmds/russia-wants-red-button-rights-11090/ thread.

 

[artstyle]

is israel a part of the missile shield? if not

shouldn't israel bee the first country to be in the "program" if they really see and show "iran" as a potential threat????

 

[Feanor]

Israel is developing their own BMD systems. I doubt the EU wants to become that tightly entangles with Israeli defense measures.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

The missile shield isn't directed against Russia, and can't possibly stop the Russian missile arsenal, not to mention it's poorly positioned to do so. It's directed against third world states (global south) with long-range/inter-continental BM capacity.

Russia is throwing a tantrum over it because they don't like the general vector of military development that is forming: shrinking strategic arsenals with proliferation of BMD technology.

You said it better than anyone else. However I think Russia is just throwing a fit against the US just for the sake of throwing a fit.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

ya thats not going to happen because like i said its aimed at them...

What use could possibly a small handful of BMD interceptors do against Russia's massive nuclear arsenal which is on par with the US?

Exactly, the NATO missile shield is of no threat to Russia(ignoring the fact that they are defensive and not offensive weapons) and are targeted towrads nations like Iran.

If the US really wanted to target Russia(with defensive missiles ) they would have to put in a lot more than just a small handful.

So in the end the Russians can't come up with any good arguments against the missile shield so it is in my opinion they are just freaking out over nothing just to get attention.

 

[Comrade69]

What use could possibly a small handful of BMD interceptors do against Russia's massive nuclear arsenal which is on par with the US?

Exactly, the NATO missile shield is of no threat to Russia(ignoring the fact that they are defensive and not offensive weapons) and are targeted towrads nations like Iran.

If the US really wanted to target Russia(with defensive missiles ) they would have to put in a lot more than just a small handful.

So in the end the Russians can't come up with any good arguments against the missile shield so it is in my opinion they are just freaking out over nothing just to get attention.

so why cant they US give them a guarantee thats its not aimed at them? thats the only thing Russia is throwing a fit at...not for the sake of it

 

[Todjaeger]

so why cant they US give them a guarantee thats its not aimed at them? thats the only thing Russia is throwing a fit at...not for the sake of it

A few things come to mind having watched the video. One of the first, and this ties directly into how/why the US/NATO might not give a guarantee that the missile shield is not 'aimed' at Russia strategic missile forces, is the mention that negotiations about such an agreement or guarantee is underway. This makes me wonder just what exactly it is that Russia wants as part of that 'agreement'?

Last I had checked, Russia had somewhere upwards of ~1,000 warheads available, thought IIRC there was the possibility of a reduction down to 'only' 650 warheads.

If the European missile 'shield' is anything like the ABM system the US has in Hawaii and Alaska (total of 18-24 interceptors) then the system in Europe would have a comparable number of interceptors, and most likely fire 2-3 interceptors at each inbound warhead. That translates into being able to intercept somewhere between 6-12 inbound warheads. Unless there was some serious breakdown within Russia, I do not see how Russia would take an ICBM warshot with only a dozen warheads. Especially when some of the ICBM's can carry that many warheads aboard.

One of the other potential reasons why there might be issues with getting an agreement is that Russia apparently does not want the European missile shield to have sufficient range to intercept BM's outside of the country's airspace, i.e. does not want an interceptor launched in Poland to have range to hit a BM while it is within Russian airspace. This IMO is unworkable since one would want to intercept a known hostile BM warhead as soon as it is identified, that way if an intercept missile, there is time to try again. Otherwise one is forced to wait until there is only time for maybe one intercept attempt prior to warhead detonation.

As for why Poland would be a missile shield site... Russia has pressured a number of other, ex-WarPac nations to not be a part of the European missile shield. IIRC the Czech Republic was one country where the US/NATO wanted to locate the interceptors, being further south. After pressure from Russia though, the Czech Republic refused to host the missile shield. Other countries which could be potential sites for either the radars or the interceptors are Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Greece and Turkey.

Of these, I would immediately reject both Greece and Turkey from the list. Turkey I would reject both from being too close to the potential launch, as well as being too unstable (politically/socially and tectonically). Greece I also reject, in this case being too far to the south and west, away from the likely ballistic arcs of missiles being fired from Iran at Central and Western Europe, as well as being too (tectonically) unstable.

Bulgaria and Romania might be too close to the launch, or they might be in an ideal location. IMO though there are potential issues of domestic stability which could make a NATO deployment problematic. Similar issues are present with Croatia. That really only leave Hungary and Slovakia, and I would not be surprised if there had been negotiations which fell apart there as well.

-Cheers