Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Iran gets the S-300
Shirrush    12/26/2007 2:16:12 PM
Now it's confirmed.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
Darth Squirrel    Tee hee   1/7/2008 9:18:18 PM





The above post is simply more long winded ranting, raving crap of course with no support for any of it's assertions.



-DA



You know, DA, "I never repeat myself more than five times."


You denounced my
theory as hogwash and smugly proclaimed that US nuclear doctrine calls
for a full-scale retaliatory strike that would wreak total destruction
of the enemy.  I let it drop because I figured it's not your area of
expertise
and I remember when my logic process was bound by the limits
of what I wanted to accept, rather than reality as it was clearly
before me.

   That theory is well-discussed in the geostrategic community but
you will not have read about it on the DrudgeReport, or seen it in a
USNews piece, or even found it on more specialized websites (hobby
sites, really) like Globalsecurity.org and Fas.org.  You were not
able to offer a single piece of evidence to refute it,
 
but you were
also not able to offer an explanation as to why Russian opposition to
it is so fierce
.


By the way, nut hoarder-[that's you, DS] you are a LIAR. The Russians don't like OTH radars in the Czech republic  because it robs them of their chance to first strike us without warning from their western missile fields where the bulk of their best rockets are. Its the difference between thirty minutes and fifteen minutes as far as US warning times go. We can clear all silos in thirty. Not so sure how many Minuteman birds will fly in 15.

And of course it would spot Iranian inbounds.

Physics here is physics, not what YOU would call common sense. 

Herald



      Forgive me, Herald, you are correct, I did make a mistake.  It's a little harsh to call me a liar but I can handle it.  What I should have said is that you could not offer a single piece of accurate evidence to refute my theory.  Perhaps you work in the State Dept. with Darth America.  Just kidding (about you, not DA, who I suspect will one day be outed as Zbignew Brzinski).
 
      The problem with your Russian first strike hypothesis is that it discounts at least 2000 W-76 and W-88 warheads deployed on our boomers.  When you're talking about a first strike, you're talking about an attempt to destroy enemy retaliatory capability and unless someone has made a revolutionary breakthrough in submarine detection technology that is impossible to do to the United States.  Silo-based ICBMs are the easiest to destroy, even though they are hardened, because the enemy always knows where they are.  Russian warheads on the SS-18 and everything produced later than that are adequate for the task - one warhead to wreck the silo and another to finish the job.  This is Cold War 101 so I guess I'm not educating you here, unless you've never heard of the nuclear triad.  In language a Russian will understand, 120 consecutive successful Trident II D-5 test launches means your ass is grass even if you take out the entire US ICBM force.
 
   All-out nuclear war is the least likely scenario in which nuclear weapons will actually be used.  Accept it or don't, it's your bliss.  I think you are forgetting that nuclear weapons are primarily a geostrategic tool and less of a weapon of actual military utility.  Maybe you should read my last post again.  What amazes me is how much of Zbignew's rubbish you let slide.... 
 
  
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Cowflop from poseur 5.   1/8/2008 4:14:25 AM
Cowflop fro








The above post is simply more long winded ranting, raving crap of course with no support for any of it's assertions.





-DA





You know, DA, "I never repeat myself more than five times."



You denounced my
theory as hogwash and smugly proclaimed that US nuclear doctrine calls
for a full-scale retaliatory strike that would wreak total destruction
of the enemy.  I let it drop because I figured it's not your area of
expertise
and I remember when my logic process was bound by the limits
of what I wanted to accept, rather than reality as it was clearly
before me.



   That theory is well-discussed in the geostrategic community but
you will not have read about it on the DrudgeReport, or seen it in a
USNews piece, or even found it on more specialized websites (hobby
sites, really) like Globalsecurity.org and Fas.org.  You were not
able to offer a single piece of evidence to refute it,
 
but you were
also not able to offer an explanation as to why Russian opposition to
it is so fierce
.



By the way, nut hoarder-[that's you, DS] you are a LIAR. The Russians don't like OTH radars in the Czech republic  because it robs them of their chance to first strike us without warning from their western missile fields where the bulk of their best rockets are. Its the difference between thirty minutes and fifteen minutes as far as US warning times go. We can clear all silos in thirty. Not so sure how many Minuteman birds will fly in 15.

And of course it would spot Iranian inbounds.

Physics here is physics, not what YOU would call common sense. 

Herald




      Forgive me, Herald, you are correct, I did make a mistake.  It's a little harsh to call me a liar but I can handle it.  What I should have said is that you could not offer a single piece of accurate evidence to refute my theory.  Perhaps you work in the State Dept. with Darth America.  Just kidding (about you, not DA, who I suspect will one day be outed as Zbignew Brzinski).

 

      The problem with your Russian first strike hypothesis is that it discounts at least 2000 W-76 and W-88 warheads deployed on our boomers.  When you're talking about a first strike, you're talking about an attempt to destroy enemy retaliatory capability and unless someone has made a revolutionary breakthrough in submarine detection technology that is impossible to do to the United States.  Silo-based ICBMs are the easiest to destroy, even though they are hardened, because the enemy always knows where they are.  Russian warheads on the SS-18 and everything produced later than that are adequate for the task - one warhead to wreck the silo and another to finish the job.  This is Cold War 101 so I guess I'm not educating you here, unless you've never heard of the nuclear triad.  In language a Russian will understand, 120 consecutive successful Trident II D-5 test launches means your ass is grass even if you take out the entire US ICBM force.

 

   All-out nuclear war is the least likely scenario in which nuclear weapons will actually be used.  Accept it or don't, it's your bliss.  I think you are forgetting that nuclear weapons are primarily a geostrategic tool and less of a weapon of actual military utility.  Maybe you should read my last post again.  What amazes me is how much of Zbignew's rubbish you let slide.... 

 

  
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       1/8/2008 4:49:16 AM


  All-out nuclear war is the least likely scenario in which nuclear weapons will actually be used.  Accept it or don't, it's your bliss.  I think you are forgetting that nuclear weapons are primarily a geostrategic tool and less of a weapon of actual military utility.  Maybe you should read my last post again.  What amazes me is how much of Zbignew's rubbish you let slide.... 
 

It's amazing how you have nothing that contradicts it yet you continue to post as if you had all of the knowledge and experience. It's more clear each time you post that you don't.
-DA

 
Quote    Reply

Darth Squirrel    fOR HErAld   1/8/2008 6:49:51 PM
No, my post was exactly on point.  You claimed that the Russians don't want a radar in the Czech Republic because they want to preserve their nuclear first strike option.  My position is that Czech radar or no, any Russian attempt to first strike the US is futile unless they can prevent a US counterstrike via American boomers.  The first strike concept means eliminating an enemy's means of retaliation - which the US SSBN force prevents.  Seriously Herald, you know that's true and so your explanation, while interesting, cannot be the answer. 
 
At least admit that - Squirrel scores.  Don't be hatin' like ZB.
 
Quote    Reply

Shirrush    Second hand SA-10's   1/20/2008 4:23:32 AM
Now the news are that the mullahcracy is set to acquire the older S-300PT from the bandits in Belarus.

Softwar, a new thread on this was not absolutely necessary.
What capabilities does this system have, and how inferior is it to the current Russian S-300PMU-1?



 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       1/20/2008 7:22:55 AM

No, my post was exactly on point.  You claimed that the Russians don't want a radar in the Czech Republic because they want to preserve their nuclear first strike option.  My position is that Czech radar or no, any Russian attempt to first strike the US is futile unless they can prevent a US counterstrike via American boomers.  The first strike concept means eliminating an enemy's means of retaliation - which the US SSBN force prevents.  Seriously Herald, you know that's true and so your explanation, while interesting, cannot be the answer. 

 

At least admit that - Squirrel scores.  Don't be hatin' like ZB.

I do believe that you've proved yourself a cretin.

As to instructions, I don't take, I give. as in GET STUFFED.

If you cannot even apply logic, then you are beyond my help to instruct and I won't waste my time trying.

I tell you plainly that I do not respect your opinion, your logic or your unfounded flawed viewpoint.

The Russians rely on their land based missiles as their first strike weapon. Anything that negates that makes them nervous. They know their sea based leg is no good.

But then this obvious FACT zips right by you, doesn't it, no matter how simply its explained?

Have a good day.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Darth Squirrel    It is hard to resist saying...   2/16/2008 8:10:52 PM
   
that you are an empty paper bag for considering, or believing that the Russians would consider, that a first strike against the United States has any strategic value at all.  They would be annihilated about 20 minutes later, even if every ICBM the Russians fired hit every target dead-on. The D-5 is the most reliable strategic delivery system in the world by far.  Simply put, there is no scenario under which a full-scale nuclear first strike would ever be contemplated by the Kremlin.  NO SCENARIO.  Total nuclear war is completely unwinnable unless you have a psychotic desire to destroy the world and would consider that a victory.  The threat of a limited nuclear exchange (nuclear blackmail) is the threat that US global missile defenses are designed to counter.  Pissant countries like North Korea are not the only nations that intend to leverage the threat of LNE against US strategic interests.  You are simply not in circles involved with this relatively unknown thread of geostrategic theory, and too arrogant to believe something that you had never thought of could be true. 
 
But anyway, I will resist saying it, so just ignore what I wrote.  You don't get it, if you did you'd realize that you were W-R-O-N-G.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Back up the truck, DS   2/17/2008 6:26:57 PM
Your so-called "security president" is a joke.



Darth Squirrel, what is your nationality?

If USA, what do you mean "your" president?

The answers to these questions would be helpful in gauging the quality of your responses.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/17/2008 6:48:46 PM

Your so-called "security president" is a joke.




Darth Squirrel, what is your nationality?

If USA, what do you mean "your" president?

The answers to these questions would be helpful in gauging the quality of your responses.
Don't bother, Nichy.

He's a waste of time.

Herald

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Back up the truck, DS   2/17/2008 7:02:11 PM

   
that you are an empty paper bag for considering, or believing that the Russians would consider, that a first strike against the United States has any strategic value at all.  They would be annihilated about 20 minutes later, even if every ICBM the Russians fired hit every target dead-on. The D-5 is the most reliable strategic delivery system in the world by far.  Simply put, there is no scenario under which a full-scale nuclear first strike would ever be contemplated by the Kremlin.  NO SCENARIO.  Total nuclear war is completely unwinnable unless you have a psychotic desire to destroy the world and would consider that a victory.  The threat of a limited nuclear exchange (nuclear blackmail) is the threat that US global missile defenses are designed to counter.  Pissant countries like North Korea are not the only nations that intend to leverage the threat of LNE against US strategic interests.  You are simply not in circles involved with this relatively unknown thread of geostrategic theory, and too arrogant to believe something that you had never thought of could be true. 

 

But anyway, I will resist saying it, so just ignore what I wrote.  You don't get it, if you did you'd realize that you were W-R-O-N-G.

You are certainly mistaken in terms of Cold War doctrine and potentially about the present era.  The Russians certainly worked the problem and, had they reached a certain correlation of forces, would certainly have considered the option.  At least doctrinally, and certainly in terms of their preparations such as the massive, comprehensive civil defense effort (from Yamantau Mountain down to the Moscow subways), their society, unlike ours, was indeed designed to survive a nuclear exchange. 

Keeping in mind, of course, that Russia, especially under communist doctrine, would accept great population losses in exchange for victory.  (If you do not agree, please study WWII.)   The Chinese more so (Mao spoke directly to this), though of course they have less to fight with.  (But their nuclear arsenal, if little threat to the USA, is quite disturbing for Russia.)  Study WWII, Korea, oh hell study history - China has never lacked the will to kill people, their own or foreigners.

That was in an era of tens of thousands of active warheads and bombs.  In the present era, the latest treaties are looking to shave us down to ~2000 warheads apiece.  If you did not know, this verges on being barely sufficient to maintain MAD as you claim.  Possibly enough to find a chink in the armor, an exploitable weakness. 

Some of the best minds in Russia are working this problem.  This is axiomatic.  I certainly hope that some of the best minds in the USA are doing so. 

Your apparent belief that Russians will ever quit on this problem and go Kumbaya bespeaks naivete regarding the Russian character.  They certainly do not intend to forgo any hope of being able to at least contend with the USA,  and probably they would like at least to have a club to hold over Europe's head - much diminished by local detection not to say actual BMD.

It is fair, though, to say very briefly that they have nothing to gain from the Polish/Czech deployments, and that it is logical for them to make noise and inflict pain on the subject, even if simply in search of a notional payoff.  In the 3D chess of international relations as played by Russia, they may simply want to maximize the threat posed by Iran to the West.  Foolish, IMHO, because Russian-Iranian contention goes back millennia too, but then they are fools, IMHO, to arm China.  Meanwhile, every ruble spent against the West is a ruble that can't be spent against China.


Then again, screw 'em.  Oh Vlad, the US has soft power because we have appeal.  People like what we have.  Nobody wants to be like Russia.  All your former rape victims want nothing between themselves and you but distance, and ideally, NATO steel and avionics as well.  Ask yourselves, why?

I must admit that it is regrettable, given history, to find ourselves having to press the Serbs.  Then again FRY and the Balkans generally are easily competitive with the Middle East in terms of the desire to 'solve the problem' by turning it all into radioactive glass.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics