REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Well darn, I can't find that thread ...

POSTED BY: RUE
UPDATED: Thursday, May 31, 2007 02:47
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3418
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:37 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


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.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:40 AM

RIVER6213


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.




Nothing like a game of "Balance of Terror"

-River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 9:49 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Former Soviet Party leaders are complaining because their nuclear missiles are becoming obsolete as an international threat to Europe. Aspirations of a Communist dominated Europe disappear further and further into the past.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.



So it's 'Do as I say, not as I do.' week in Russia?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:14 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:46 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.



I understand. It's OK for the Russians to have MIRVed ICBMs capable of carrying 10 nukes each, which can only be used in an aggressive manner, but bad for the US to propose providing anti-missle coverage for Europe. After all, Russia has never been a threat to anyone.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:04 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"anti-missle coverage for Europe"

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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:12 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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.

Well, that’s nonsense. So missiles targeting Europe don’t have a “mid-flight.” Sorry, but ballistic trajectories are continuous from launch to impact, unless Iran has developed wormhole technology. Whether you kill the target in midcourse, descent or anywhere else along its flightpath is a tactical decision for best odds of interception. It has nothing to do with where the target impact point is.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:22 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:25 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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

We can and we do.

And no one said it was simple.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:39 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"So missiles targeting Europe don’t have a mid-flight."

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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:42 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"If it's that simple, why can't we shoot down incoming missiles from our own country?"

"We can and we do."

Yuh. After the interceptors are pre-programmed with the target's flight path. (Happen to know the programmer who did that.)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:46 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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.

They don’t? It sounds to me like you just don’t understand the technology or you're confusing some things.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:04 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


Quote:

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


Then I guess Europe can opt out of the missle defense shield much like Canada did. Seems like another smear campaign against the present administration, nothing more.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:07 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"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.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:09 PM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:10 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Then I guess Europe can opt out of the missle defense shield much like Cananda did. Seems like another smear campaign against the present administration, nothing more."

With the exception of Poland and Czechoslovakia, they have. But the two countries have nullified the rest of the European continent's desire to be uninvolved.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:13 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


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. So yes, just like I said. Not for European defense, just US defense.
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


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:15 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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.

And how is that?



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA


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

Might pass a handily rigged test or two, maybe enough to get a nice juicy DoD contract, but the chances of them actually potting a mid-flight missle are slim enough that it's a waste of money.

Diplomacy is cheaper than guns.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:09 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


That I do know. The tests had the target's flight path pre-programmed, and didn't include chaf or multiple objects that were anything like the missile.

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 ..

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:13 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


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 ..


http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/27/iran.us.talks/index.html
Sorry for the pop-ups but it is CNN after all.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:26 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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 ?

No I didn’t realize that. In fact, we’ve made successful completely operational test flights of the GB BMD KE interceptors.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:27 PM

FIVVER


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.


Uhh, not quite. Any strike on the US from the Russian mainland would come over the pole, not Europe. And the article I found definitely stated they were for European Defense. As far as Europe rejecting them the only quote I could find for that was the EX pres of Germany.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:50 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

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



As Finn noted, we can, if they're aimed at our country. However, look at a world map and notice how relatively close the middle-east and western Asia are to Europe and how far away the US is. If we are trying to defend Europe from missles fired by rogue states (as we state), it's too far for any US-based interceptors in both range and flight time, hence the missles based in Europe.

Now it's your turn to explain why Russia needs a new line of MIRVed ICBMs, since they're just peace-loving ex-commies.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:41 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


First, to correct some errors on various posters' parts

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/27/iran.us.talks/index.html
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.

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

"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).

*************

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.



NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:54 PM

BIGDAMNNOBODY


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.


From http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/05/27/iran.us.talks/index.html
The meeting in Baghdad will be the first public and formal meeting between U.S. and Iranian representatives since the United States cut off diplomatic relations 27 years ago.

Talks with Iran are talks with Iran, regardless of what they are talking about. This very well could be an important first step to improved relations between the two nations but it is happening on Bush's watch and you cannot stand that IMHO. I made you eat your words and you shifted the goalposts and threw an ad hominem my way. Once again you demonstrate how very slick you are.


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:22 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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).



But for defense of Europe from a missle attack from Iran, or anywhere else in the Middle-East, the ABMs sited in Europe would work just fine.

In other words, ABMs based in Europe are dandy for intercepting missles aimed at Europe. For missles aimed at the US, not so much. Besides, it's much more likely that 'rogue states' would have intermediate range missles which could threaten Europe, but not reach half-way around the world to hit the US.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:22 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


BM

No, no, and, uhmm, no. And in case I missed anything, no.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:41 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


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



---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:46 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Geezer,

"But for defense of Europe from a missle attack from Iran, or anywhere else in the Middle-East, the ABMs sited in Europe would work just fine. In other words, ABMs based in Europe are dandy for intercepting missles aimed at Europe. For missles aimed at the US, not so much."

The US has NEVER claimed the missiles were exclusively for European defense - they are primarily for US defense, even according to official government sources.

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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 3:58 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


SignyM

It's clear Finn was NOT talking about the system the US wants to deploy. It's just more FUD-spreading.
Quote:

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


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:22 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Quote:

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

Yes.
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.

As I said, you don’t actually know what you’re talking about.
Quote:

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

Not surprisingly though, General Obering does:

"The test we conducted today was significant in the fact that, as the next step in a progression, we launched an operational interceptor out of an operational site at Vandenberg Air Force Base, (Calif.)," General Obering said. "It was conducted by operational crews, manning operational fire and control systems in Colorado Springs, (Colo.). It was conducted with the support of operational radar in California, also manned by warfighters, and it was against a very threat-representative target."
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123026360
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.

I have my reasons for thinking that, which have nothing to do with some conspiracy theory, which is basically all you’re operating on.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:44 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


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

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:02 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


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

Sure it is.

Just like Russian missiles flyout over the Europe.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 12:08 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


I could tell you exactly how I know, but then I'd have to kill you.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 2:58 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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.



So if this is true, the ABMs in Europe can't defend he US against a ME strike either, since they can't intercept on boost or mid-course, are too far from the US to do re-entry interception, and aren't designed for that anyway.

Since you just make these assertions without cites, I guess I'll have to do research on my own to find out the truth, since you're statements obviously don't make sense.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 4:33 AM

KANEMAN


"since you're statements obviously don't make sense."- geezer

I second this!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:07 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"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?

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you, too.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:17 AM

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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 5:29 AM

FIVVER


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?


Not if they are stationed in Poland and the Czech Republic as we are planning.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:11 AM

KANEMAN


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



I think the "Ruse' is saying it could land 300 miles outside of London..........


*edit*
nope, that is not correct........

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:13 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Not if they are stationed in Poland and the Czech Republic as we are planning."

London to Warsaw 905 miles + appx 300 miles west of Londond is about 1200 miles, well within interceptor range.

And your point is ???

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 6:15 AM

KANEMAN


"Londond'

The fucking French........

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


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?




No time to chat right now, but here's a nice link to the NMD system and its operation.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/nmd.htm

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:36 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


OOHHH, the very first paragraph states that it is for US defense from rogue nations - not defense of Europe. But moving along, you'll notice that nowhere does it say these systems are currently operational. It's a description of how things are supposed to be.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:53 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


GMD, ABMD and PAC are all operational. And since no interceptors exist in Europe yet, it is only for US defense, right now. And if the anti-ABM people get their way, it might stay that way.



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:00 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


Define "operational".

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:04 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL


Operational adj. – of or relating to the practical application of principles or processes



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

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:12 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


So this system is guaranteed to intercept missiles in real life then, right?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL