BF2S Forums Russia nuclear bombers in Cuba

You guys can put as much felt tip pen on as many satellite photos as you like.
No-one will ever believe you again.

Dilbert_X wrote:

You guys can put as much felt tip pen on as many satellite photos as you like.
No-one will ever believe you again.

Taji is full of bad people that dont mind killing civilians as long as an American patrol gets hit.

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

You missed the other option, that the missile shield is used to intercept a retaliatory strike. Russia gets rightfully pissy about missile shields because they are bugger all use against a Russian first strike (Russia has way too many missiles for such a system to make a significant impact on) but a retaliatory strike could be significantly reduced by a missile shield. This kind of missile shield is widely considered a first strike weapon as it is predominantly useful if you attack first and only have retalliatory strikes to deal with.

No, I didn't miss that option. I did the math and realized it is irrelevant.

The interceptors are anything but a first strike weapon. They aren't even a defensive weapon for use against a massive inbound strike. There simply aren't enough of them. There are what...20, 30 interceptors, tops? Compared to hundreds/thousands of warheads in the Russian inventory?

The missile shield wouldn't make a dent in any retaliatory strike. It's intended to/designed to/only capable of stopping a single/handful of inbound warheads.

Wikipedia wrote:

NMD deployment is planned in three phases. The first phase is called Capability 1 (C1), and was originally designed to counter a limited threat from up to about five warheads with either simple or no countermeasures. More recently this phase has been upgraded to include the deployment of up to 100 interceptors and would be aimed at countering tens of warheads. This would require radar upgrades. Since North Korea is perceived to be the earliest missile threat, the interceptors and radar would be deployed in Alaska.

The second phase is called C2 and designed to counter an attack by warheads with more complex countermeasures. It would deploy additional radars and more interceptors, plus a missile-tracking satellite system. The C3 phase is supposed to counter threats consisting of many complex warheads. It would deploy additional radars as well as additional interceptors, including some at a second site, bringing the total to 200 or more. Although the C3 system is the current final deployment goal, the system design permits further expansion and upgrades beyond the C3 level. A Pentagon study concluded that the NMD system could be upgraded by integrating the hundreds of interceptors to be deployed as part of the ship-based Navy Theater Wide missile defense system. These interceptors would be integrated into the sensor infrastructure of the NMD system.

Even at it's final phase, it could only engage a couple of dozen warheads. Your (and JahManRed's) argument fails on math alone.

The initial US strike massively destroys Russian capability leaving just a handful of nukes that can be launched. That's the scenario that the Russians seem to believe. That's what they are worrying about. That's why it's useful as a first strike weapon, it protects against a much weakened retaliatory strike.

The other idea is that these missiles are to protect Europe against a middle east country like Iran launching nukes (that don't exist) on ICBMs (that don't exist) agaisnt European cities (as opposed to Israel for some reason) despite the obvious fact that this would be utter suicide for whoever launched them.

Ok, well since it is was a US strike, then the system still wouldnt have an impact as it only effects missiles that are aimed at Europe.

JahManRed wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You guys can put as much felt tip pen on as many satellite photos as you like.
No-one will ever believe you again.

And that's what it all comes down to, since what our government is saying doesn't agree with what you are saying, it is a bunch of lies.

Emmmm no. What your government made up and what the coalition including your country didn't find is why it was a bunch of lies.

It was American solders out there who searched and found fuck all. Contradicting the "intelligence" your intelligence agencies manufactured. 
Its common knowledge it was a fabrication to get a UN resolution.

Id love to know where this "common knowledge" of a "fabrication" comes from. Because I suspect you are spouting bull shit. Cause last I heard, people listened to what Saddam was saying, hell, HE thought he had WMDs.

JahManRed wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

You guys can put as much felt tip pen on as many satellite photos as you like.
No-one will ever believe you again.

And that's what it all comes down to, since what our government is saying doesn't agree with what you are saying, it is a bunch of lies.

Emmmm no. What your government made up and what the coalition including your country didn't find is why it was a bunch of lies.

It was American solders out there who searched and found fuck all. Contradicting the "intelligence" your intelligence agencies manufactured. 
Its common knowledge it was a fabrication to get a UN resolution.

It wasn't only US intelligence agencies who were agreeing to what was on the table.

SEREVENT wrote:

I don't even know what America are even doing helping us out. Surely we, The EU, can defend ourselves?

I think its more of the willingness to defend rather than the capability. America (from what I've gathered) generally prefers to prepare for a situation rather than waiting until its too late.

PureFodder wrote:

The initial US strike massively destroys Russian capability leaving just a handful of nukes that can be launched. That's the scenario that the Russians seem to believe. That's what they are worrying about. That's why it's useful as a first strike weapon, it protects against a much weakened retaliatory strike.

The other idea is that these missiles are to protect Europe against a middle east country like Iran launching nukes (that don't exist) on ICBMs (that don't exist) agaisnt European cities (as opposed to Israel for some reason) despite the obvious fact that this would be utter suicide for whoever launched them.

Your theory would be valid...if it weren't so fundamentally flawed.

If the US were to launch a massive first strike, Russia would launch a massive retaliatory strike long before the first US warheads detonated. Some of those retaliatory warheads are targeted on the interceptor locations, rendering them useless against the warheads targeted against the cities/military targets.

Russia knows that full well. They just don't like the idea of their former satellite countries cozying up to NATO. That's it. Russia knows there is not threat posed by those interceptor sites...it's just a convenient excuse that seems slightly less petty than the real one. At least to people who don't bother to look any deeper at the situation, technology, and policies involved.

If you worded your second paragraph this way, it would be accurate:

PureFodder should've wrote:

The other idea is that these missiles are to protect Europe against a middle east country like Iran launching nukes WMD (that don't do exist) on ICBMs MRBMs (that don't do exist) agaisnt European cities (as opposed to Israel for some reason has their own ABM system, on which the US system is based) despite the obvious fact that this would be utter suicide for whoever launched them.

It's not just about nukes, even though that is a valid concern. Iran doesn't need an ICBM to reach most of Europe...they just need longer-range MRBMs, which they are actively developing. The challenge is to get the interceptors in place before they field a MRBM with enough range and throw weight to affect more than SE Europe (which they can today). As for Israel, not sure the physics and orbital dynamics would allow an interceptor launched from Poland to intercept a warhead launched at Israel from Iran...it appears the interceptor would have to fly farther than the Iranian warhead. Since they're traveling at the same speed (relatively)...and the interceptor would be launched AFTER the Iranian missile...and would have to travel FARTHER than the Iranian missile...don't see how defense of Israel could even be a player.

Again...it just requires putting a tiny bit of thought against the anti-shield arguments and they just fall apart.