Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
But in it Finn was saying the US was deploying an anti-missile in Europe for their protection, making them safer. NOT.

The story below


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070529/ts_nm/shield_russia_dc;_ylt=AtNH.P
32vAiYf0.4J7GnQh7MWM0F

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that the deployment of a U.S. missile shield in Europe would turn the continent into "a powder keg."

"We consider it harmful and dangerous to turn Europe into a powder keg and to stuff it with new weapons," Putin told visiting Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates at the Kremlin.

"It creates new and unnecessary risks for the whole system of international and European relations," he told Socrates, whose country takes over the European Union's rotating presidency on July 1.

Russia's Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said it had test-fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile featuring multiple warheads designed to overcome missile Defense systems.

The United States says the shield is needed to protect (itself) against missile attacks from what it calls rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"We consider it harmful and dangerous to turn Europe into a powder keg and to stuff it with new weapons," Putin told visiting Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Socrates...Russia's Defense Ministry, meanwhile, said it had test-fired a new intercontinental ballistic missile featuring multiple warheads designed to overcome missile Defense systems.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Oh yeah, 'cause WE put our missiles right at their doorstep, have military bases in a ring from Iceland thru Germany, Italy, Turkey, Iraq and a bunch of other ME nations and then we wonder why they feel threatened.

Huh.

It's been a "Do as I say, not as I do" century for the USA.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Well, that's a red (ahem) herring. The US missiles aren't the kind that target incoming warheads, which they'd have to be to protect Europe. They target mid-flight warheads - in other words, the ones passing over Europe bound for the US. Europe gets all of the risk and none of the benefit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
If it's that simple, why can't we shoot down incoming missiles from our own country?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Different missiles for different jobs. The mid-flight missiles in Europe don't have the range to take out warheads mid-flight to Europe. They are designed to intercept mid-flight over Europe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Europe gets all of the risk and none of the benefit.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"They don’t? It sounds to me like you just don’t understand the technology or you're confusing some things."

Nope.

"The design for the interceptors will be based on the three-boost interceptors already in Alaska and California. The Missile Defence Agency wants to remove one of the motors to build two-boost stage rockets needed to meet the geographic and altitude requirements for countering an Iranian threat.

The Missile Defence Agency (MDA), along with contractor Boeing, is studying the design for the two-boost phase conversion, which should be completed in June, but no timeframe has been set to begin testing the adapted missiles, agency spokesman Richard Lehner said."

Shortened range.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"They don’t? It sounds to me like you just don’t understand the technology or you're confusing some things."

Nope.

"The design for the interceptors will be based on the three-boost interceptors already in Alaska and California. The Missile Defence Agency wants to remove one of the motors to build two-boost stage rockets needed to meet the geographic and altitude requirements for countering an Iranian threat.

The Missile Defence Agency (MDA), along with contractor Boeing, is studying the design for the two-boost phase conversion, which should be completed in June, but no timeframe has been set to begin testing the adapted missiles, agency spokesman Richard Lehner said."

Shortened range.

---

Like I said.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Yes, a range not capable of going far enough to intercept missiles on their way to Europe, only long enough to intercept in-flight missiles over Europe. In other words, headed to the US.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Do you have any idea what a climb-down it would be if Bush were to actually have talks with Iran ??? All the money in the world wouldn't be enough to make that happen. That's why the US is spending all the money in the world ..

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Y'all do realize the point is almost moot since none of our missle interception systems actually, you know.. WORK, right ?

---

Quote:

---

Yes, a range not capable of going far enough to intercept missiles on their way to Europe, only long enough to intercept in-flight missiles over Europe. In other words, headed to the US.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
If it's that simple, why can't we shoot down incoming missiles from our own country?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Yes these talks are about Iraq, and have nothing to do with Iran and 'nuke-you-lar' technology. That is Bush's famous application of the Paris Hilton school of diplomacy ... well, they know what they did, I'm certainly not going to talk to them. And BDN, get a life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Any strike on the US from the Russian mainland would come over the pole"
That why this system is said to be a defense against the 'Middle East' (Iran).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- so if I understand the alphabet soup: Ground based ballistic missile defense kinetic energy interceptors.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- so if I understand the alphabet soup: Ground based ballistic missile defense kinetic energy interceptors.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
The US has no boost-phase interceptor capability. There is not enough time to track the trajectory of a ME missile for mid-flight interception. That leaves reentry interception for European defense - but the US missiles are not built for that task. In other words - they can't defend Europe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"we’ve made successful completely operational test flights of the GB BMD KE interceptors"
Yeah, right.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Oh you poor simple-minded folk. You think that just because the US says the missiles could and might defend Europe from Iran that they actually can and will.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
That's the test where I said the target trajectory was pre-programmed into the interceptor. In addition, there were no decoys. You could have saved yourself the post if you had actually, like, read mine. You see, this is what I had posted: "The tests had the target's flight path pre-programmed, and didn't include chaf or multiple objects that were anything like the missile." Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 13:09

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

The US has no boost-phase interceptor capability. There is not enough time to track the trajectory of a ME missile for mid-flight interception. That leaves reentry interception for European defense - but the US missiles are not built for that task. In other words - they can't defend Europe.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Mid-course from the ME would be where, Geezer? Tehran to NYC is 6113 miles, midcourse puts it 300 miles out of London.

---

Quote:

---

Mid-course from the ME would be where, Geezer? Tehran to NYC is 6113 miles, midcourse puts it 300 miles out of London. I'd say a European-based interceptor is in the right spot to take out a warhead mid-course to NYC, wouldn't you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Mid-course from the ME would be where, Geezer? Tehran to NYC is 6113 miles, midcourse puts it 300 miles out of London.

---

What?! How is that? It’s almost 3000 miles between London and Tehran. I don’t think midcourse means what you think it means.

---

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"since they can't intercept on boost or mid-course"

Mid-course from the ME would be where, Geezer? Tehran to NYC is 6113 miles, midcourse puts it 300 miles out of London. I'd say a European-based interceptor is in the right spot to take out a warhead mid-course to NYC, wouldn't you?

---