Author Topic: Euro Missle Shield (Read 7969 times)

Boroda · « **Reply #120 on:** June 06, 2007, 06:40:01 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
Only the russians are stupid enough to build an early warning radar deep inside there own country. The fact of the matter is to be effective the radar would be placed at the border if not beyond. This is done to give the maximum amount of warning possible. Radar is still line of sight. At least until someone defys physics and bends radar. It cannot see over the horizon. I highly doubt the objection ever occured (prove me wrong). In order to be useful its very exsistence would have been kept secret. You need to attend a school not swayed by russian propoganda.

LOL. I should quote on Russian forums, you, your'e awesome! EW radar station, a huge phase array like in Olenegorsk (and I saw that one myself, it's titanic) was rumoured to be built near Krasnoyarsk. Now check with the globe and try to imagine the distance with main population and industrial centers. I think it was Toad who screamed here that we couldn't violate the treaty the US withdrew from 15 years later

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
The fact of the matter is you also have not disputed hardly any of my claims on other subjects which leads me to belive your knowledge of US weapons is far from complete. Half your post have made no sense and the other half have been utter garbage. I challenge you to prove me wrong in anything I have writen. This is to be done with proof....your word has no merit in my mind.

Thank you for your compliments to Russia/USSR above, I can only say the same thing about you. And I'd prefer my own socialist glass of caedar-nut vodka with herring and hot potatoes or some caviar-bread-and-butter

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
Good day

CFYA

You definetly need some more geography lessons. It's late night here. Have a nice day youself

Homework: try to understand why we needed an EW radar in Krasnoyarsk, look at economical map of the USSR, possible ICBM trajectories, middle-range missile ranges, their deployment locations in mid-80s, and watch Dr. Strangelove - there is a good picture from which directions of inbound B-52s. Also ask Toad about where he "plotted ingress routes" in late-70s. Ah, sorry. also check ICBM elevations and how far they can be seen over horizon.

Try Googling for "krasnoyarsk early warning radar". Look at a beautiful propaganda masterpiece I found: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n16_v40/ai_6563414 I love people excavating such bull**** and revealing it for public access 20 years later

Boroda · « **Reply #121 on:** June 06, 2007, 06:41:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
And yes we have been able to detect a global missile launches for many decades.

As far as your submarines.....if the captain farted we would know before his comrades had the chance to smell it. Most of your boats are notoriusly easy to find and identify. Would it matter if I told you we could identify a submarine by listening to the frequencies output the power plant and prop noise. Every sub has a individual noise that makes it stand out.

CFYA

LOL how many US subs are now bravely floating in White Sea?

You are more and more funny with each post

Vad · « **Reply #122 on:** June 06, 2007, 06:57:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
Only the russians are stupid enough to build an early warning radar deep inside there own country. The fact of the matter is to be effective the radar would be placed at the border if not beyond. This is done to give the maximum amount of warning possible. Radar is still line of sight. At least until someone defys physics and bends radar. It cannot see over the horizon.
CFYA

Mua-ha-ha!
No, only American are stupid enough to build an early warning radar and intercept missiles against North Korea and Iran threat not near the borders of that countries (somewhere in Japan, South Korea, Iraq, Israel) but near Russian borders!
You've just confirmed Putin's words - that system in Europe is not against North Korea or Iran. It's against Russia.
You are clever guy. Although. only complete idiot can't see the obvious facts.

Captain Virgil Hilts · « **Reply #123 on:** June 06, 2007, 07:04:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Boroda
LOL how many US subs are now bravely floating in White Sea?

You are more and more funny with each post

And how many Russian subs are sitting in Russian harbors, rusting, and leaking radiation? Not that they didn't rust and leak radiation when they were actually operational.

No one is funnier, or more deluded, than you Boroda.

CFYA · « **Reply #124 on:** June 06, 2007, 07:05:43 PM »

If I posted FACTS would you even change one thought in that mind of yours?

If you listen I can explain why this system has no bearing on Russia's capabilities to target the US. I will explain it in depth once again IF you can at least approach it with an open mind.

How bout it?

CFYA

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #125 on:** June 06, 2007, 07:10:34 PM »

the problem lies in, this toy can also be used for an attack, period.
who would like such a thing close to his backyard ? anyone?

...and dont start a talk about a peacefull nation...just look at
the globe and whats really going on today.

CFYA · « **Reply #126 on:** June 06, 2007, 07:21:22 PM »

This particular TOY cannot be used in a attack role. The missile doesnt even have a warhead for christ sake.

I highly doubt it could manuever well enough to impact a fighter undergoing high g manuevers. Since there are no explosives on board it would have to be a direct hit.....the probality of that happening are slim and none. And forget ground targets because the thing would hardly scratch the soil.

Ignorance is bliss and some people will excersize that right to the fullest extent possible.

CFYA

Vad · « **Reply #127 on:** June 06, 2007, 07:29:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
If I posted FACTS would you even change one thought in that mind of yours?

If you listen I can explain why this system has no bearing on Russia's capabilities to target the US. I will explain it in depth once again IF you can at least approach it with an open mind.

How bout it?

CFYA

As you can see I listened you, and even reply. Moreover, I provided some facts, but you didn't want to approach them with an open mind. You even didn't try to read them, or reply to them.
Facts:
1. According to you EW system isn't effective being far from point of launch. Is it fact or not? Do you confirm your words.
2. According to you (older posts) russian missiles will fly North (yes, you were correct, it will be N-NE not NE-E as I said), so ther is no sence to use defence missiles in Europe against Russian ICBMs
3. According to you this system covers Europe, not USA against North Korea and Iran missiles

It's youf statments, isn't it?

My statements (I said them already):
1. It would be much better to defence Europe (and USA, BTW) against North Korea and Iran threats near their boards, not ours. It would be much more effective and less costly for the USA (Japan and Iraq are already yours)
2. Nobody is talking about missiles in Poland. 10 missiles - it's nothing. We are talking about radar. As you've said the most efficient EW radar is that which is near the border. You are right.
3. This radar will be one the first target for our nuke missiles. And it's right, because it's real threat for Russian security.

How's about it?

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #128 on:** June 06, 2007, 07:31:14 PM »

you missunderstud me, no need to change this toys, they dont need a warhead,
and still they can be used in a tactical attack to destroy enemy missiles...
am i wrong?

Boroda · « **Reply #129 on:** June 06, 2007, 07:32:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
If I posted FACTS would you even change one thought in that mind of yours?

So far you mostly post opinions. and, believe me, not the clever ones.

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
If you listen I can explain why this system has no bearing on Russia's capabilities to target the US. I will explain it in depth once again IF you can at least approach it with an open mind.

How bout it?

You can try, but on a level you showed above - I am afraid it will be another joke for quoting on Russian forums

We will be always against NATO/US (enemy) activities near our borders. We withdrew from Eastern Europe, refrained from arms race - and you keep pressing on us, immediately forgetting about all promises you made, like NATO non-spreading eastwards.

Now you speak about Russian "energy weapons", "gas blackmail" etc, forgetting that it was you who taught us "capitalism". So your side runs a PR campaign explaining how barbaric and undemocratic we are, trying to make Russian monopolies give you oil and gas cheaper (or just for free). OTOH we have elections soon, so Putin's useless threats and rhethorics are aimed at looking "patriotic" (fooling the public opinion) and at the same time protecting profits of parasitic Russian financial groups. It's the political and economical side.

Military side is that it leads to re-deployment of mid-range ballistic missiles that render US "ABM system" even more useless then it is supposed to be, at the same time giving Russian side no time to launch a retaliation strike before the button is pressed by justifying enemy mid-range missiles deployment in Europe again. It all leads to less stability, I hope you understand it. It will be like 10min instead of 40min between launch and first blasts over my house in Moscow. And if "blue" side will have 50% probability that there will be no retaliation launch - your leaders will press the button immediately. Both sides will. So it goes.

I sometimes use "blue" and "red" side because on US military maps "red" arrows mean hostile, and on Russian maps hostile arrows are "blue".

Boroda · « **Reply #130 on:** June 06, 2007, 07:39:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
This particular TOY cannot be used in a attack role. The missile doesnt even have a warhead for christ sake.

I highly doubt it could manuever well enough to impact a fighter undergoing high g manuevers. Since there are no explosives on board it would have to be a direct hit.....the probality of that happening are slim and none. And forget ground targets because the thing would hardly scratch the soil.

Ignorance is bliss and some people will excersize that right to the fullest extent possible.

CFYA

Missiles with no warheads are called fireworks. Most of conventional mid-range and long-range SAMs can be fitted with "special payload".

USSR could knock incoming ICBM warheads with conventional warheads since 1975, but according to what Wolfala found on the Net they still use megaton charges in Moscow point-defense.

Above I explained how ABM system can ruin the balance.

OK, nice to talk, but I have to go to bed - will have to get up for work in less then 5 hours.

CFYA · « **Reply #131 on:** June 06, 2007, 07:41:57 PM »

Would you deny the fact that russian ICBMs will go north over the pole to strike US assets?

If so why would you say a missile system with only a few hundred kilometer range to the east(and some what south) is designed to intercept Russian missiles?

Answer this one...

CFYA · « **Reply #132 on:** June 06, 2007, 07:45:22 PM »

Sorry....the missile system the US wants to deploy in Europe is a kinetic kill vehicle. In other words it destroys the target using the combined velocity of both vehicled. THAAD stands for Theater High Altitude Area Defense. This is the system in question. It uses NO WARHEAD. Wether it be nuclear, or convential. Do a google search......not just my opinion.

CFYA

Vad · « **Reply #133 on:** June 06, 2007, 07:47:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by CFYA
Would you deny the fact that russian ICBMs will go north over the pole to strike US assets?

If so why would you say a missile system with only a few hundred kilometer range to the east(and some what south) is designed to intercept Russian missiles?

Answer this one...

Sorry, I don't understand, is this question addressed to me?
I've already answered this question. But you are ignoring my answer...

Edit: just in case. Yes, you are absolutely correct.

CFYA · « **Reply #134 on:** June 06, 2007, 08:15:05 PM »

Vad that question was directed to Boroda...

However I think you and me agree on certain points.

Yes inorder to be effective the radar has to be as close to launch point as possible in order to give the most warning.

Yes this system would be in place to stop incoming threats to Europe.

(On that note, the US is not saying this particular site is designed to stop North Korean threats. It is more or less grouping threats together in attemp to explain why the system was desgned in the first place. The sight in Poland is for protection from Iran. Other sights near Korea would be for defending local assets from Korean missiles. North Korea and Iran have nothing in common other than using the same system at both locations. Neither location is capable or intended to protect anyone from both threats. Make sense?)

The US has a spaced base launch detection system. We do not absolutly have to have a EW radar anywhere on the ground. In fact I am not sure if the DEW lines are still operational. Your arguement is that the detection of Russian ICBM launch (which is what your saying this is used for) is the biggest threat to Russia correct?

My counter to that is we already have had sateilites in the air for some time specificly to detect Russian attacks.This negates your whole arguement. What is your reponse?

This missile system is a threat to any nation launching ballistic vehicles.
Poland is seperated from mainland Russia by hundreds of miles and 6 countries. IMO this is not the borders of Russia.

Did I miss any questions?

CFYA