• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Georgia and the Russian invasions/annexations/Lebensraum (2008 & 2015)

The missiles for Poland are defensive from my understanding.  Meant to shoot threats down (like missiles), not destroy territory and kill innocent people.  Big difference between what Russia is threatening to do (agressive), and what Poland may do (defensive).

I only recall them not getting a lot of support from their western allies once...back in 1939.  After that war they were Soviet (that went well... ::)), and since the fall of the iron curtain they havent really been in a really bad situation yet.
 
tomahawk6 said:
If it was an ABM system I wouldnt be too worried.If it was an ICBM though then we have another problem entirely.
Click to expand...

As you might know after some modifications the ABM silos can host short range missiles with nuclear heads.
As Russia cannot distinguish an ABM and ICBM launched from the same silo, and time delays are very short, a counter attack could be launched automatically.

 
CDN Aviator said:
you need it if you think for one seconds that Russia would not hang Poland out to dry if it benefited Russia.
Click to expand...

If you would do this does not mean everybody would.
Relax.
 
Well, lets see...

An ABM will only be launched AFTER a ballistic missile is launched against them.
So, if a missile comes out of that silo before the Russians luanch a ballistic missile, it's safe to assume that the missile is NOT an ABM.
If Russia launches a ballistic missile first, then it really doesn't matter what comes out of that mystery silo because Russia just started a full scale war.

That works the same the other way around, with us as the aggressors.
 
Flanker said:
As Russia cannot distinguish an ABM and ICBM launched from the same silo, and time delays are very short, a counter attack could be launched automatically.
Click to expand...

Ummm...  I'm no military genius, but if the ABM birds are in the air, doesn't that presuppose that they are the "counter attack"?

Oops, beat me to it Koenigsegg   ;D
 
Flanker thats where intelligence gathering comes in. During the Cuban Missile crisis we flew recon missions over Cuba, we photographed the ships the missiles were transported on. We also had some HUMINT. We knew the types of missiles and how many.We are transparent about about this ABM system and would probably allow Russian GRU officers to observe the type of missile being deployed.These are kinetic energy interceptors with no warhead.On top of it we are only deploying 10 so its hardly a threat even to the paranoid Russians.
 
Koenigsegg said:
So, if a missile comes out of that silo before the Russians luanch a ballistic missile, it's safe to assume that the missile is NOT an ABM.
Click to expand...

But the fact is still the same the silo must be targeted.
And we all know technology is not perfect ...
This is why it is surprising how the Poland president blindly takes the risk disregarding will of his people
 
Targetted maybe, but there would be no reason to blow it up, until you realise that it just launched a missile without you firing first.  And no sensible country will be the first to launch any form of nuclear weapon.

I think he means to prove how "the Poland president blindly takes the risk disregarding will of his people".
Sure, he signed, but what's this about the will of the people?  (I don't know about it, I'm not being an ass)
 
tomahawk6 said:
These are kinetic energy interceptors with no warhead.On top of it we are only deploying 10 so its hardly a threat even to the paranoid Russians
Click to expand...

Not these interceptors. I am talking about short/medium range missiles hosted in the same silos.
Just put you in place of Russia.
US and Poland are not listening to Russia when placing 10 interceptors.
Would they listen when placing 35 or 342 interceptors or anything else?
What would you do?

You manage risk and include this stuff in your target list.
It is this simple.


 
CDN Aviator said:
Prove that it was against the will of Poles
Click to expand...
Poles are among the few nations that hold generally positive views of the United States. But a poll published Aug. 10, 2006, in the Polish daily Rzeczpospolita found that 63 percent of Poles were against allowing the United States to build an anti-missile site on Polish soil. Less than a quarter of those surveyed (23%) were in favor and 14 percent expressed no opinion.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/breuropera/244.php?lb=breu&pnt=244&nid=&id=
 
If I were in Russias shoes,  I'd set up interceptors in my territory.  Much nicer than saying "Hey, you, Poland.  You do this, and you open yourself up to nuclear attack."
They set up interceptors, I don't trust them, so I'll do the same.
 
Koenigsegg said:
If I were in Russias shoes,  I'd set up interceptors in my territory.  Much nicer than saying "Hey, you, Poland.  You do this, and you open yourself up to nuclear attack."
They set up interceptors, I don't trust them, so I'll do the same.
Click to expand...

This is what Russia said.
 
Koenigsegg said:
Targetted maybe, but there would be no reason to blow it up, until you realise that it just launched a missile without you firing first.  And no sensible country will be the first to launch any form of nuclear weapon.
Click to expand...

All this nice logic worked perfectly for long range ballistic missiles when you have like 15-20 minutes to make decision.
This does not work for short range missiles.
No sufficient time, the response must be entirely automatic.
This an enormous risk for all parties.
There is no winner.

This is why US and USSR signed agreements to eliminate these missiles in Europe.
 
Tell ya what........We'll all chip in and buy you a oneway ticket on Air Canada to Mother Russia so you can go there and really research these factoids.  Please sign the documents enclosed ensuring repayment of funds and 25% interest compounded annually.

Hope you a long stay. 
 
Nevermind, I may have misinterpretted a post.
So I got rid of what I typed.
And I replace it with this:

Yes, that is what they said.  They did  indeed in a nutshell say "You do this, and you open yourself up to nuclear attack."  Except, I'm leaving out the "100%" part.
 
Koenigsegg said:
Yes, that is what they said.  They did  indeed in a nutshell say "You do this, and you open yourself up to nuclear attack."  Except, I'm leaving out the "100%" part.
Click to expand...

Not really. The message was incorrectly interpreted by media.
Russia said that it may put short range missiles near Poland.
These missiles could be potentially equipped with nuclear heads (if needed) however this does not mean they will be.
Exactly as ABM or whathever will be hosted at Poland bases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top