[TravelerKai]

(08-04-2016 01:19 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 03:35 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 03:18 PM)kaotic Wrote:  

I don't see an all out MAD scenario playing out, I think that time has come and passed.

Both sides are smarter now, not to mention proxy wars are the way to go.

We have to become friends with the Russians - which would help keep China in check and them putting NK in check.

The wild cards here are NK, Dirty Bombs, and a possible Nuke Commander going crazy.

Nuclear war has always fascinated me - I remember we had 1950's era encyclopedias at my house. Alot of Cold War references in it.


EDIT: TK is right about the MIRV system, it's a fuck all scenario. Even a few nukes would fuck this world up.

The problem is that the Neocons and globalistic liberals no longer want MAD based Foreign Policy. I posted the reasons in the other thread (bolded and underlined)

(07-24-2016 03:11 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

.... We earned this heat with the past 8 maybe 16 years of arrogant intervention in other countries and especially Obama pushing those Patriot systems closer to Russia.

You have to understand geopolitical nuclear warfare strategy and how it affects foreign policy. Russian ICBMs won't make it to the US, if Patriot systems are in the Ukraine. They called Putin's bluff and he invaded to their surprise. All this stuff affects every kind of deal making between all sides, US, Russia, NATO, EU, etc. Russia also lost some of it's ability to hurt the EU with their natural gas chokehold. So if he can use our democracies against our own leaders by method of cyberwarfare, he will do it. He has shown the world several times that his gangster is to be respected.

.......
When MAD is not an issue, who has all the leverage at the deal table?

In regards to the bolded, that is simply inaccurate. The Patriot missile, even in its current iteration as a bastardized component of the "missile defense" system is not designed for nor capable of intercepting strategic ballistic missiles in their boost phase. It is an 80's era SAM originally conceived to intercept tactical missiles or at the very best short or intermediate range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase of their trajectories.

In other words, the Patriot is not a system designed to track and shoot down an ICBM as it leaves its silo or mobile launcher and climbs on the initial part of its trajectory to some faraway target. Rather, Ukraine-based Patriot batteries could only be used to shoot down ballistic missiles targeted at the Ukraine or its immediate neighbors, once those missiles had already climbed above the atmosphere and initiated their final descent to their targets. Even then, they could only (theoretically) intercept IRBMs launched from at most 3,000km, as longer range ICBMS would have far too great terminal velocity for the Patriot missiles to deal with. Remember: the Patriot is a glorified SAM. Real anti-ballistic missile systems, like GMD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Bas...se_Defense) don't use 700kg missiles, they use thousand-ton rockets


Furthermore, even were the US to base a bona fide boost-phase or midcourse missile defense system in E. Europe, this would not threaten Russia's ground based strategic missile forces for the simple reason that they are spread out all across the unimaginable vastness of Siberia, more than 3,000 miles from the nearest of Russia's European borders. In the event of launch, their trajectories would take them over the North Pole and Canada on a trans-polar route, which is the shortest distance from Siberia to any location in North America. Any missile defense system located in E. Europe would not come into play for protecting the United States proper.

Thanks for that insight. Makes more sense. Well if that is the case what is the main reason to push them closer to Russia's territory? To intercept cruise missiles and/or their aircraft? Those nearby radar trucks that triangulate even stealth technology seems to be an obvious fit for that.

If Russia is worried about it's ability to conduct war with aircraft then those SAMs being there seem to be a justified threat.

Ground based missile defense looks extremely expensive from that link you provided and Obama was not able to put one in S Korea due to pressure from China (which makes sense). We seem to have them in California and Alaska and that still costs billions to maintain.

[Fast Eddie]

(08-04-2016 02:15 PM)TravelerKai Wrote:  

Thanks for that insight. Makes more sense. Well if that is the case what is the main reason to push them closer to Russia's territory? To intercept cruise missiles and/or their aircraft? Those nearby radar trucks that triangulate even stealth technology seems to be an obvious fit for that.

If Russia is worried about it's ability to conduct war with aircraft then those SAMs being there seem to be a justified threat.

Ground based missile defense looks extremely expensive from that link you provided and Obama was not able to put one in S Korea due to pressure from China (which makes sense). We seem to have them in California and Alaska and that still costs billions to maintain.

Who can say what reasoning exists behind any US foreign policy moves since the end of the Cold War? We've been completely hijacked and our moves are dictated by cretins taking orders from plutocrats and foreign nationals. I'm sure Russia is pissed at any US military expansion on its borders, whether or not it threatens MAD.

And yes, missile defense is horrifically expensive, even against pathetic adversaries like North Korea. Against Russia, it is absolutely impossible. The technology does not exist to reliably intercept ICBMS past their boost phase, as they are moving too fast, up to 10km/s. The boost phase, on the other hand, is only a few minutes long and gives you zero warning time. You basically have to chase after the ICBM rather than intercept it. Theoretically, it's possible if you're talking about defending against N. Korea and you know that N. Korea has 1 launch site, as you can move your guided missile cruiser or whatever close to the site and wait.

But Russia? Ha! They have hundreds of separate, mobile launch sites, each at least 1000 miles from the closest coast or border. Unless the US can somehow secretly sneak its ABM assets into Russia and install them right next to each launch site, which is preposterous, they have no chance. If you can't get your boost-phase interceptor within a couple hundred miles of the launch site, the ICBM will be long gone by the time your interceptor arrives in the vicinity. Russia's greatest asset in maintaining MAD is in fact its outrageous geographical size, and unlike technology, size doesn't become obsolete.

[kaotic]

Watched this movie while I was working.

Pretty good World War 3 scenario all playing out of East/West Germany during the tail end of the Cold War.[/quote]