[Mars]

The US has had the Patriot system for a while, but I don't like the statistics. At least, not with nukes.

I don't think the Moscow ABM system (or any ABM system for that matter) is something they'd want to depend on, really.

[Mefustae]

C'mon people, there's nothing wrong with this! Russia is merely stating, matter of fact, that Poland is making herself a target by erecting interceptors within her borders. As Kara said and as many of you seem to have glossed over; Russia isn't threatening to strike if the interceptors go up, they're merely laying down the cold, hard truth that ABM-systems make very, very attractive targets in the early phases of a nuclear exchange. Thereby, Poland is willingly painting a rather large, nuclear bullseye on themselves with little or no gain. Hell, Russia may be sabre-rattling, but at least she's got logic on her side!

Moreover, Russia's complaints are perfectly legitimate. There may only be 10 interceptor systems, but if Russia just lets them by without kicking up a fuss - as they are now - then NATO and the US will think that they can put as many ABM-systems as they like around Russia without any trouble at all. Whether or not they really would think that is debatable, but in the world of politics you have to do things like this or appear weak. That's just the way the world works.

The US has had the Patriot system for a while, but I don't like the statistics. At least, not with nukes.

Statistics nothing, the system's a joke. Recent modernizations have improved the system, but the Patriot is laughably spotty for how much it was championed during the early 90's.

[NGTM-1R]

The US has had the Patriot system for a while, but I don't like the statistics. At least, not with nukes.

Statistics nothing, the system's a joke. Recent modernizations have improved the system, but the Patriot is laughably spotty for how much it was championed during the early 90's.

Beg differ, Patriot is an excellent system since the PAC 3 upgrade...for theater missiles. They never pretended to be able to intercept a true ICBM. Considering its sucess ratio against the Scuds when it was neither designed nor programmed for it and that the PAC 3 upgrade changed both, Patriot's a great system if you need to knock down SS-21s.

[Mefustae]

Eeh, you've got a point there. I just really love airburst nuclear interceptors too darn much. There's fighting fire with fire, and then there's fighting nukes with nukes. Ain't war grand.

[Kosh]

Let's look at it this way, What if Russia does something equally provocative in Central or South America?

[Al Tarket]

put it like this, the united kingdom, france, ireland and spain were all targeted by russian forces with nukes, would you let them fly over into these countries without trying to stop them, or would devise a system to filter out as many or all these nukes? to debate this point would be like asking to erect a plastic roadblock to stop a hostile heavy tank instead of having some very well hidden AT mines.

[WMCoolmon]

Ignorant question here -

I remember reading something about a treaty that was supposed to allow one ABM system per side, the Russia had theirs in Moscow, and the NATO one was supposed to be somewhere else. Does anyone know what I'm talking about or what happened to it?

[Al Tarket]

as i recall the united states withdrew from that treaty.

[Mars]

Honestly it sounds pretty stupid to my unsleeping brain (forgive me if that's totally stupid as it's 3:00 AM here here). A treaty against the development of ABM systems is kind of like a treaty against the development of body armor.

[karajorma]

A treaty against body armour works just fine if only a few people control the guns and also make a treaty not to develop guns with armour piercing capabilities.

The alternative is an arms race with both sides simultaneously trying to develop better armour AND better guns. 

[NGTM-1R]

I remember reading something about a treaty that was supposed to allow one ABM system per side, the Russia had theirs in Moscow, and the NATO one was supposed to be somewhere else. Does anyone know what I'm talking about or what happened to it?

I don't think NATO ever was allowed one; the Russians already had theirs and were allowed to keep it provided it was not expanded or modernized.

Either that or the ASAT treaty overrode it, because anything capable of knocking down a mid-phase ballistic attack can hit a satellite. Russia's ABMs are only suitable for stopping the end.

[Mika]

Yeah, I agree that the thread title should be renamed. This is far too sensationalist.

Snip

 ...although by the terms of the arms control treaties from the '80s, none of the ABMs should currently be carrying nuclear warheads.

Snip

Again I'm amazed that people think Russia would obey the treaties in the long run. Though I suspect the same from USA, looking at the land mine ban, MOAB, and interceptor missiles - but this is different, USA is on our side, right?

I recall reading that Russia then modified the warheads control system so that they are making a random movements around the target to burn off the interceptor missile's energy? And, I'm quite sure that the only ABM system Russians have thought is using nukes against nukes. On the other hand, seeing show like Dance with Death contains some of the most obvious history revisions for today's world that I have seen):
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WRDmPoWYHT4&feature=related
makes one think if seemingly erratic warhead movement is simply a claim but there isn't anything truth behind it.

Mika

[Mefustae]

On the other hand, seeing show like Dance with Death contains some of the most obvious history revisions for today's world that I have seen):
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WRDmPoWYHT4&feature=related

I guarantee most History Channel watchers wouldn't bat an eyelid.

[Al Tarket]

it certainly gives an insight into russian tv and the way they think, in some cases it's similar to american histroy war tv shows. however, thats not missile vs nuke, but missile vs jet fighter.

[NGTM-1R]

Again I'm amazed that people think Russia would obey the treaties in the long run. Though I suspect the same from USA, looking at the land mine ban, MOAB, and interceptor missiles - but this is different, USA is on our side, right?

Which is why I mentioned the thing about the Kursk having had nuclear armament onboard. And, to be quite totally fair, the US is not a signatory to the land mine ban, reasonably, since we have both the resources and the willingness to actually clean up after ourselves. And I'm not sure what the MOAB point was.

[Mefustae]

...since we have both the resources and the willingness to actually clean up after ourselves.

Resources? Possibly. Willingness? That's debatable.

[NGTM-1R]

Resources? Possibly. Willingness? That's debatable.

I concede the second point, but not the first, since mine warfare is something we've put a lot of money into lately (as it's also applicable to the famous roadside IEDs).

[Mefustae]

I concede the second point, but not the first, since mine warfare is something we've put a lot of money into lately (as it's also applicable to the famous roadside IEDs).

That sounds fair. You're right, a lot of effort has gone into that area. The problem is seeing it trickle down into poorer regions after the larger powers lose interest. See; Laos.

[TrashMan]

A treaty against body armour works just fine if only a few people control the guns and also make a treaty not to develop guns with armour piercing capabilities.

The alternative is an arms race with both sides simultaneously trying to develop better armour AND better guns. 

Except you don't really need bigger guns. Seriously, no one wants to start WW3..a.k.a. Armageddon.

I say that Poland did the right thing. Russia wont' go to war over this and IF a WW3 starts then everyone is pretty much f*** up regardless if he has interceptors installed or not. at least it gets something for it.

[Snail]

Except you don't really need bigger guns. Seriously, no one wants to start WW3..a.k.a. Armageddon.

And that's really going to stop people from making them?