Russian attack aircraft just flew within 30 feet of a U.S. Navy ship

[Ulmita]

So it's saintly when Russia invades another country. It's not saintly when America does it. Got ya... sound reasnoning.

Lets examine both cases:

Ukraine: Russia 4+ million ethnic Russians leaving there which got bombed to oblivion. Ukraine wanted to join NATO too which it means they would bring more army right on the borders. National sovereignty in direct danger. Their people in direct danger.

vs

Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq etc: USA no people leaving there or in direct danger, said countries are thousands of miles away from home, no national security in danger by them wanting to join an alliance with Russia and even if they did they are so far away that means nothing etc.

I find both scenarios unwelcoming but the first i can understand it a bit more. Can you see the difference? One country is reacting because basically is afraid and the other is just releasing imperialistic testosterone.

[Kellhound]

Russia has a problem with NATO. It sees it as an existential threat. Before NATO moved in eastwards Russia was fine. Before NATO started putting the ABM shield in Europe Russia was fine. Russia asked to cooperate with NATO in the shield and they got decline. Russia asked for legal guarantees for that shield from NATO and it got rejected.

We keep poking Russia and when Russia reacts, they are the bad guys. We have our share of responsibility, make no mistake about it.

Russia is just butthurt that its former Warsaw Pact slaves decided to turn to NATO and throw off the yoke of Russian domination.

[Ausr]

Lets examine both cases:

Ukraine: Russia 4+ million ethnic Russians leaving there which got bombed to oblivion. Ukraine wanted to join NATO too which it means they would bring more army right on the borders. National sovereignty in direct danger. Their people in direct danger.

vs

Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq etc: USA no people leaving there or in direct danger, said countries are thousands of miles away from home, no national security in danger by them wanting to join an alliance with Russia and even if they did they are so far away that means nothing etc.

I find both scenarios unwelcoming but the first i can understand it a bit more. Can you see the difference? One country is reacting because basically is afraid and the other is just releasing imperialistic testosterone.

Dude, I know exactly where you stand on the whole Russia/US issue. I can see through your bullshit you're trying to project trying to play one side as righteous defenders of others compared to warmongering Americans.

Your examples are so lopsided they make Halle Berry's tits look straight.

[Crispin]

Ulmitas issue is that he see's everything in black and white, the US is bad, therefore Russia must be good, apparently viewing both with a critical view is beyond his capabilities.

And he is ignorant when it comes to history, the gulag system were still in function post ww2, but ignoring facts serve his juvenile world view better.

[Ulmita]

Ulmitas issue is that he see's everything in black and white, the US is bad, therefore Russia must be good, apparently viewing both with a critical view is beyond his capabilities.

And he is ignorant when it comes to history, the gulag system were still in function post ww2, but ignoring facts serve his juvenile world view better.

No you are 100% mistaken. I am very critical of Russia, China, my country, my self.
Rest assure that if Russia, Greece, Canada etc were pulling the same shit as the USA, i would be the FIRST person in these boards, on the internet, out at the streets protesting.

American posters seem to be very critical of Russia but not of themselves.

Think-before-you-vote

[Crispin]

And lets not forget that Russia sails military ships much closer to NATO countries, without NATO pilots behaving like turds.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet you defend every Russian action, using cluster bombs is ok if Russia does it right? You're a hypocrite, and in the end just a russophile.

[Bakis]

No you are 100% mistaken. I am very critical of Russia, China, my country, my self.
Rest assure that if Russia, Greece, Canada etc were pulling the same shit as the USA, i would be the FIRST person in these boards, on the internet, out at the streets protesting.

American posters seem to be very critical of Russia but not of themselves.

Think-before-you-vote

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure it was you who wrote "Russia is the only place with real freedom" in one of the other Russia/Ukraine threads.

[Skroe]

Russia has a problem with NATO. It sees it as an existential threat. Before NATO moved in eastwards Russia was fine. Before NATO started putting the ABM shield in Europe Russia was fine. Russia asked to cooperate with NATO in the shield and they got decline. Russia asked for legal guarantees for that shield from NATO and it got rejected.

We keep poking Russia and when Russia reacts, they are the bad guys. We have our share of responsibility, make no mistake about it.

Russia's fears were bullshit. Now before you comment, you need to read the below very carefully and read the slides or this will go way over your head. There are two types of missile defense in question: GBMD and Aegis BMD.

The ABM shield in question at the time was the Groundbased Midcourse Missile Defense System, currently in operation in Alaska and California (with a site opening in the North East some time in the next few years). It's this.







When most people talk "US Missile Defense" this is what they mean. This is "Star Wars". It's not nearly done yet, and is still flawed, it's getting there (the next step is a better interceptor in the next few years).

GBMD could defend against certain types of attack from Russia if an East Coast base is built (which it is). However basing GBMD interceptors in Europe was never a threat to Russia. Why? This is why.



Ballistic Missiles targeted at the US would never "catch up" to Russian ICBMs from European based interceptors (they would from US based of course, opposite direction). Furthermore Russia targeted Europe during the cold war with Medium, Intermediate and Short Ranged ballistic missiles. Europe was too close for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles to be used (for the most part).

Putting GBMD Interceptors in Europe would have done nothing to undermine Russia's deterrent. The US is going to do that anyway by the way, by building an East Coast base.

GBMD requires a large network of Radars, including an XBAND Radar to function. Russia's proposal was to base it at a Russian base in Russian territory. That was unacceptable to the US. The US has a 35 year lead on this technology, technology that Russia hasn't dropped any amount of money into. Using a joint radar site would have given them access to some of the mos sensitive US military technology there is. And it may not have even been compatible. So no plan was reached.


Later, Obama decided to replace the idea of basing GBMD in Europe with placing four Aegis Destroyers with this Ballistic Missile Defense System, around European waters performing that task, until the Aegis Ashore system could be built (basically Aegis BMD without the boat). The Donald Cook is one of those boats.




This is a picture of the one being build in Romania last year. More are on the way.



These things are very popular. The US is building a couple along the US Coast. Japan wants them. Others have expressed interests.

Basically Russia screwed up. Aegis BMD is simpler and more mature than GBMD, but less capable.



See that? It can't intercept ICBMs as well as GBMD (see footnote), but it has full capability versus Short, Medium and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles. In other words, exactly the kind of missiles that Russia would launch at Europe and US forces in Europe.

So that's what Russia got for it's ridiculous demand and inflexibility: a worse problem. The US sharing Ballistic Missile Defense technology is a non-starter, but the basic geometry behind how GBMD would never have hurt Russia's deterrent should have made their assent straightforward. Instead, GBMD got replaced with something that actually undermines Russia's deterrent.

[Ulmita]

And lets not forget that Russia sails military ships much closer to NATO countries, without NATO pilots behaving like turds.

- - - Updated - - -

Yet you defend every Russian action, using cluster bombs is ok if Russia does it right? You're a hypocrite, and in the end just a russophile.

I prefer they do something that not do anything at all, especially vs that ISIS monster. If they can't afford to drop every time guided munitions so be it. At least they are doing something

[Cybran]

Too bad that Bulgaria, Poland and Romania will block the Anti-Russian missile shield, because the USA requires Visas. The USA can't treat them as second rate people. The USSR treated them as equal.

[Bakis]

Too bad that Bulgaria, Poland and Romania will block the Anti-Russian missile shield, because the USA requires Visas. The USA can't treat them as second rate people. The USSR treated them as equal.

As long as they did Kremlin bidding. Fractual history is what you are really good at.

[Deleted]

If they can't afford to drop every time guided munitions so be it.

If they did not build and deploy that many medium-range nuclear missiles aimed to Western Europe they would have.....

[Kontinuum]

The USSR treated them as equal.

[Crispin]

I prefer they do something that not do anything at all, especially vs that ISIS monster. If they can't afford to drop every time guided munitions so be it. At least they are doing something

but you went apeshit when ukraine were using clusterbombs correct? Just pointing out your hypocrisy here.

[Hooked]

Russia's fears were bullshit. Now before you comment, you need to read the below very carefully and read the slides or this will go way over your head. There are two types of missile defense in question: GBMD and Aegis BMD.

The ABM shield in question at the time was the Groundbased Midcourse Missile Defense System, currently in operation in Alaska and California (with a site opening in the North East some time in the next few years). It's this.







When most people talk "US Missile Defense" this is what they mean. This is "Star Wars". It's not nearly done yet, and is still flawed, it's getting there (the next step is a better interceptor in the next few years).

GBMD could defend against certain types of attack from Russia if an East Coast base is built (which it is). However basing GBMD interceptors in Europe was never a threat to Russia. Why? This is why.



Ballistic Missiles targeted at the US would never "catch up" to Russian ICBMs from European based interceptors (they would from US based of course, opposite direction). Furthermore Russia targeted Europe during the cold war with Medium, Intermediate and Short Ranged ballistic missiles. Europe was too close for Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles to be used (for the most part).

Putting GBMD Interceptors in Europe would have done nothing to undermine Russia's deterrent. The US is going to do that anyway by the way, by building an East Coast base.

GBMD requires a large network of Radars, including an XBAND Radar to function. Russia's proposal was to base it at a Russian base in Russian territory. That was unacceptable to the US. The US has a 35 year lead on this technology, technology that Russia hasn't dropped any amount of money into. Using a joint radar site would have given them access to some of the mos sensitive US military technology there is. And it may not have even been compatible. So no plan was reached.


Later, Obama decided to replace the idea of basing GBMD in Europe with placing four Aegis Destroyers with this Ballistic Missile Defense System, around European waters performing that task, until the Aegis Ashore system could be built (basically Aegis BMD without the boat). The Donald Cook is one of those boats.




This is a picture of the one being build in Romania last year. More are on the way.



These things are very popular. The US is building a couple along the US Coast. Japan wants them. Others have expressed interests.

Basically Russia screwed up. Aegis BMD is simpler and more mature than GBMD, but less capable.



See that? It can't intercept ICBMs as well as GBMD (see footnote), but it has full capability versus Short, Medium and Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles. In other words, exactly the kind of missiles that Russia would launch at Europe and US forces in Europe.

So that's what Russia got for it's ridiculous demand and inflexibility: a worse problem. The US sharing Ballistic Missile Defense technology is a non-starter, but the basic geometry behind how GBMD would never have hurt Russia's deterrent should have made their assent straightforward. Instead, GBMD got replaced with something that actually undermines Russia's deterrent.

I think all the aluminum particles darpa is putting into the atmosphere is actually a missle defense system, they will just beam a bunch of electricity up there and fry the missle boards. That's just a guess. Like a crude force field. The Russians can use like 17 nuclear warheads on each missle, so obviously we aren't going to rely on just 1 missle to take out 17.

[Skroe]

Too bad that Bulgaria, Poland and Romania will block the Anti-Russian missile shield, because the USA requires Visas. The USA can't treat them as second rate people. The USSR treated them as equal.

MEANWHILE in Romania...




MEANWHILE in Poland...

http://www.defenseone.com/technology...troops/127157/

With a nervous eye toward Russia, Poland’s president is asking NATO to keep more troops on its territory.

The U.S. is also planning to install SM-3 missile interceptors in Poland by 2018, part of the Obama administration’s European missile defense shield. But the so-called “Phased Adaptive Approach,” is largely geared toward shooting down Iranian long-range ballistic missiles that leave the Earth’s atmosphere and then reenter near the target, Karako said.

“We and our NATO allies have a shared reason to move not just to ICBM-killers, but to more lower-tier defenses that frankly can be effective in deterring conventional Russian aggression,” Karako said.

That means NATO could look to shoot down lower-flying missiles with interceptors such as the Patriot, Raytheon’s SM-6, and Lockheed’s Medium Extended Air Defense System.

“If you want to deter Russia, you want to deter the multiplicity of missiles that they have,” Karako said.

Bartosiak said Poland needs more than its current 48 F-16 fighter jets. One way of bolstering its defense is by acquiring and upgrading retired American F-16s.

“If we had approximately 200 of those, we would have a real air force capability,” he said, noting that Poland could overhaul the planes domestically.

The Polish air force could also use more JASSMs, stealthy cruise missiles built by Lockheed, Bartosiak said.

and last but not least, MEANWHILE in BULGARIA...
http://sofiaglobe.com/2016/03/30/bul...shopping-list/

The investment projects also include the continuing airworthiness of Bulgaria’s ageing Soviet-made MiG-29 fighters, a legacy of the country’s Warsaw Pact past. The idea is to keep the Russian-made fighters flying to protect Bulgarian air space as the country embarks on the long-delayed acquisition of multi-role fighter jets it needs to get up to Nato standards.

The government said that the modernisation projects – the acquisition of the fighters and the patrol boats – would be the largest in recent years, would increase the operational capabilities of the Bulgarian military and would go towards meeting Bulgaria’s commitments to collective defence.

A new type of fighter would overcome Bulgaria’s deficit of capabilities to neutralise a wide range of air, land and maritime threats. Achieving the acquisition of the fighters would bring with it full interoperability with the air forces of Bulgaria’s Nato and EU allies.

Ensuring the airworthiness of the MiG-29s was directly associated with the project to acquire new combat aircraft, to ensure the capability of the Bulgarian Air Force to guard the country’s air space and ensure the air sovereignty of Bulgaria in Nato’s integrated air and missile defence system.

Why do you do this to yourself Cybran? Do you hate yourself?

[Cybran]

Why do you do this to yourself Cybran? Do you hate yourself?

Politicians blinded by greed are aligning us with the threat to humanity. Happened already in the 1930s and Hitler.

[Skroe]

I think all the aluminum particles darpa is putting into the atmosphere is actually a missle defense system, they will just beam a bunch of electricity up there and fry the missle boards. That's just a guess. Like a crude force field. The Russians can use like 17 nuclear warheads on each missle, so obviously we aren't going to rely on just 1 missle to take out 17.

US Missile Defense would be useless against a Russian First Strike.

Against "the ones that got away" from a US First Strike on Russia though... that's only a few dozen warheads... well within the theoretical limits of missile defense.

Also the US is MIRVing it's interceptors in a few years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_Kill_Vehicle

[img]http://makezine.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/make_pt1429.jpg[/img


Each one of those canisters is a kill vehicle, so that's 12 Kill vehicles on one interceptor.

[img]http://steeljawscribe.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/mkv.jpg[/img


If it works, even against a Russian First strike, we'd need about 1 interceptor for every MIRV'd Russian missile, down from up to 12 today.

- - - Updated - - -

Politicians blinded by greed are aligning us with the threat to humanity. Happened already in the 1930s and Hitler.

No I'm referring to the fact that you can't just say "Too bad that Bulgaria, Poland and Romania will block the Anti-Russian missile shield, " when I already posted one picture of the Romanian Aegis Ashore BMD facility under construction, which spurred me to post a second, better picture of it.

My picture invalidates your statement.

It's like you want to set yourself up.

Look you are free to think Bulgaria should align itself with Russia of course. But you're not entitled to your own facts about what is or is not going on.

[Cybran]

No I'm referring to the fact that you can't just say "Too bad that Bulgaria, Poland and Romania will block the Anti-Russian missile shield, "

If the EU doesn't introduce visas for USA and Canada this summer Poland, Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria and Cyprus will introduce their own measures. They might block your soldiers from entering their countries or tear down the missile complexes.


Your treatment of their citizen won't stand.

[Deleted]

If the EU doesn't introduce visas for USA and Canada this summer Poland, Romania, Croatia, Bulgaria and Cyprus will introduce their own measures. They might block your soldiers from entering their countries or tear down the missile complexes.


Your treatment of their citizen won't stand.

You`re dumber than I thought if you actally believe Poland, Romania and Bulgaria will break strategic relationship with US over some fucking visas.

But then again, literally not one of your ''predictions'' have ever come true so your track record is non-existent.