Russia: Obama Signed Away Missile Defenses

[GeneC]

Russia: Obama Signed Away Missile Defenses

Russia: Obama Signed Away Missile Defenses

Wednesday, 05 Jan 2011 09:04 AM

By William Chedsey

Russia’s legislature says the New START nuclear arms treaty ratified last month by the U.S. Senate restricts the U.S. from building and operating missile defenses against nuclear attacks. President Obama says the opposite: that the treaty “places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs.”

There may never have been such a huge dispute on such a fundamental

aspect of a high profile treaty between two major world powers. As reported by the Voice of Russia on Monday, Russia’s Duma, the lower house of parliament, “plans to confirm the link between the reduction of the strategic offensive arms and the restriction of antimissile defense systems’ deployment in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START),” according to the lawmaking body’s foreign policy chief.

More blunder!!

[talisyn]

I think Russia is being Russia lol. Plain and simple. Orwell had to get the stuff for 1984 from somewhere after all.

[FunkyTown]

Well, Russia isn't entirely in the wrong.

A missile defence system is still a missile system. It can deploy offensive weapons anywhere within its sphere of influence and can be extremely dangerous.

If Russia decided to deploy a missile defense system in Cuba, for instance, the US would cause a huge uproar and wouldn't allow it. Have we learned so little from the Cuban Missile Crisis in our own history that we can't understand why they're reacting in that way?

That having been said, even a strictly defensive system(Which isn't possible to build. Even a strict surface-to-air deployment would allow anti-aircraft firing) is bad news for Russia. Russia has been saber-rattling for years and its invasion of Georgia has shown that it's willing to go to war with US allies. Without a strong deterrent, Russia will use its Nuclear deterrent to become the big bully in the region.

It's a whole lot more complicated than 'Obama blundered!'

[Guest]

FT is the man.

[Saintmichaeldefendthem1]

This debate goes back 50 years. The reason the Soviets wanted to place missiles in Cuba was to level the playing field. We had a knife at their throat with our missile defense positions in Germany and they wanted the same. Our policy is sound, I believe, to acquire for ourselves every strategic advantage while denying them any advantage. I don't believe in "fair play" when it comes to American cities being threatened. But ever since the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Russians have been lobbying for a mitigation of the U.S. advantage. And now we are finding that our benevolent president may have done just that with this treaty.

Edited January 7, 2011 by Saintmichaeldefendthem1
spelling

[Guest]

Glad to hear your thoughts Saintmicheal! I enjoyed this post!

[HoosierGuy]

Russia: Obama Signed Away Missile Defenses

Russia: Obama Signed Away Missile Defenses

Wednesday, 05 Jan 2011 09:04 AM

By William Chedsey

More blunder!!

More newsmax news. Buyer beware.

[HoosierGuy]

Aren't we still decades from a true missile defense system? From what I remember all the tests done by the U.S. have not been too successful. Those nuclear missiles speed around the world to it's destination very quick. I've heard knocking a missile out of the sky with another missile is like hitting a speeding bullet with another bullet, extremely hard to do.

[NeuroTypical]

A missile defence system is still a missile system. It can deploy offensive weapons anywhere within its sphere of influence and can be extremely dangerous.

Now Funky, you know I love ya man. But dang. Maybe it's just where I live - driving past Honeywell and Lockheed Martin plants, going to church with umpteen govt. contractors who build stuff and what not, working with a bunch of R&D engineers building hi-tech stuff, but dang. Your statement is like listening to someone claim that the illuminati causes all the forest fires out there by legislating against the water content in trees or something like that.

No, really - a gazillion dollar specialized weapons system is only going to be doing what it was designed to do, or maybe falling out of the sky 'cuz it didn't work. We're really a long way from the transformers movie where ghetto blasters turn into evil robots and such. No really - a missile defence system is only going to be good at shooting down missiles. It might not do it that well, but it's surely gonna stink at doing anything else.

If Russia decided to deploy a missile defense system in Cuba, for instance, the US would cause a huge uproar and wouldn't allow it. Have we learned so little from the Cuban Missile Crisis in our own history that we can't understand why they're reacting in that way?

Well, we'd be in an uproar probably because Russia would be lying about what they'd be installing. There's no reason for Russia to spend a gazillion Rubles protecting Cuba from nukes, because we could eliminate Cuba using conventional means much more cheaply. Not exactly a lot of room to hide stuff on an island that size...

[HEthePrimate]

Meh. It doesn't really matter what the treaty says. It's not as though we have a great track record of honoring treaties in the first place! (ducking the rotten tomatoes )

[NeuroTypical]

Treaties and alliances work as long as they work for both parties. Once it stops working for one party, the treaty or alliance usually ends. This is geopolitics, not something unique to the USA.

The only tomato you gotta duck here, is me identifying you picking up on a reason to trash the US, while somehow failing to pick up that it's something all nations do, and all have done, and all will continue to do, until Christ shows up and makes us knock it off.

[FunkyTown]

LM? A computer is essentially a dumb beast.

A missile defense system will be designed for shooting down fast-moving aerial objects.

I understand where you're coming from, but as one who works in computers, I would be very interested in the computer programmer who can come up with the software that teaches a computer how to identify a missile versus an airplane, or how to design hardware that can shoot down a missile but would be completely incapable of shooting down an aircraft, I would be interested.

The US's great triumph in missile defense, the AEGIS cruiser, uses RIM-67 missiles.

RIM-67 Standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those were used to sink an Iraq attack craft(Not missile, but an actual craft) and the AEGIS cruiser is a triumph of defensive engineering.

Can you point me to where I can read up on the advances you're talking about? I wasn't aware that our software and hardware had advanced to the point you're talking about, but obviously with you being close to weapons developers, you must know more about the hardware development side of things.

I'd be fascinated to hear more about how much more advanced the US has gotten than its AEGIS cruisers. Those things are awesome. Where can I read about what you're talking about?

Now Funky, you know I love ya man. But dang. Maybe it's just where I live - driving past Honeywell and Lockheed Martin plants, going to church with umpteen govt. contractors who build stuff and what not, working with a bunch of R&D engineers building hi-tech stuff, but dang. Your statement is like listening to someone claim that the illuminati causes all the forest fires out there by legislating against the water content in trees or something like that.

No, really - a gazillion dollar specialized weapons system is only going to be doing what it was designed to do, or maybe falling out of the sky 'cuz it didn't work. We're really a long way from the transformers movie where ghetto blasters turn into evil robots and such. No really - a missile defence system is only going to be good at shooting down missiles. It might not do it that well, but it's surely gonna stink at doing anything else.

Well, we'd be in an uproar probably because Russia would be lying about what they'd be installing. There's no reason for Russia to spend a gazillion Rubles protecting Cuba from nukes, because we could eliminate Cuba using conventional means much more cheaply. Not exactly a lot of room to hide stuff on an island that size...

[NeuroTypical]

I see what you're saying Funky. "A missile defence system is still a missile system. It can deploy offensive weapons anywhere within its sphere of influence and can be extremely dangerous." That's fine and dandy - but with such a limited range, how is it that the Russians would feel threatened by short/medium range tiny missiles designed to shoot down flying stuff. Especially when there are plenty of non-missile-defense short/medium range missiles already there, as part of offensive capability.

When it comes to START talks and discussions around nukes, missile defense systems are a political counter to the nuclear missile, which is itself more a political thing than an actual weapon. Don't get me wrong - of course these are real weapons, but the reason they are built and deployed are to achieve geopolitical ends, not to win battles. You got nukes, you got more chips at the bargaining table. A missile defense reduces those numbers of chips, which Russia was complaining about, and which Pres. Obma handed them.

There was a Stratfor article I wish I could find which I'm taking most of my thoughts on the matter from. Free Stratfor updates rock - you might find signing up for them a good thing.

LM

[Guest]

LM? A computer is essentially a dumb beast.

A missile defense system will be designed for shooting down fast-moving aerial objects.

I understand where you're coming from, but as one who works in computers, I would be very interested in the computer programmer who can come up with the software that teaches a computer how to identify a missile versus an airplane, or how to design hardware that can shoot down a missile but would be completely incapable of shooting down an aircraft, I would be interested.

The US's great triumph in missile defense, the AEGIS cruiser, uses RIM-67 missiles.

RIM-67 Standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those were used to sink an Iraq attack craft(Not missile, but an actual craft) and the AEGIS cruiser is a triumph of defensive engineering.

Can you point me to where I can read up on the advances you're talking about? I wasn't aware that our software and hardware had advanced to the point you're talking about, but obviously with you being close to weapons developers, you must know more about the hardware development side of things.

I'd be fascinated to hear more about how much more advanced the US has gotten than its AEGIS cruisers. Those things are awesome. Where can I read about what you're talking about?

My thoughts exactly. Although, I am not at all well-versed in weapons systems - just logical extrapolation on my part.

This brings to mind my conversation with my Iranian friend on Iran's nuclear program. Iran wanted to enrich plutonium for nuclear energy but they can't - because they aren't allowed anything nuclear. Because, there's no way of proving that anything in Iran that has to do with nuclear energy is not going to be used in a weapon system. This sucks because Iran was great in nuclear energy advances in the 60's that would have made oil a secondary energy source. This would have made oil a minor issue as an interest in war efforts and UN involvement.

[FunkyTown]

My thoughts exactly. Although, I am not at all well-versed in weapons systems - just logical extrapolation on my part.

This brings to mind my conversation with my Iranian friend on Iran's nuclear program. Iran wanted to enrich plutonium for nuclear energy but they can't - because they aren't allowed anything nuclear. Because, there's no way of proving that anything in Iran that has to do with nuclear energy is not going to be used in a weapon system. This sucks because Iran was great in nuclear energy advances in the 60's that would have made oil a secondary energy source. This would have made oil a minor issue as an interest in war efforts and UN involvement.

I was actually really excited when LM said he'd seen examples. I was like, "We have a real, capable Identify Friend/Foe system in place? That's a short step to virtual intelligence!"

I was about to go invest in whatever software company developed it.

To LM's point:

Russia is terrified of US precision bombing. More terrified than of the US's carpet bombing. In fact, Russia has said that if it went to war with the US and the US brought out its precision weapons, it would use nukes.

The scary thing, for Russia, is that the US precision strikes basically makes a laughing stock of Russia and China's production capabilities. Until Russia can deploy countermeasures similar to what the US has provided, full on war with the US is not likely. Russia doesn't care if downtown Moscow gets levelled. The battle for Leningrad showed that.

Destroy a country's production capability and their population doesn't mean much.

Short and medium range missiles represent the greatest threat to Russia's sovereignty at the moment. While it may theoretically have the smart technology to develop precision missiles(Look at the sinking of the Kursk and Russia's Supertorpedos), it doesn't have anything close to what the US has in its Aegis systems. Long story short: Russia is afraid its manufacturing base will be crippled in the opening salvos of a war. If Russia can prevent that, its fairly confident it will own the sea. Most of the Missile Defense Systems set up also have the capability to launch precision strikes at manufacturing capabilities while simultaneously minimizing damage from Russia's own strikes. This is why Russia hates the idea of a missile defense system. If a truly effective one comes in to play, Russia would lose in any war with said system.