DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on November 05, 2008, 06:27:22 PM
-
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iixUMnyP1SvpqLuds4ACt56lczywD948NF6O0 (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iixUMnyP1SvpqLuds4ACt56lczywD948NF6O0)
AS far as I know ther is no Russian plan to invade Europe , these missles are just decorative. http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Missiles_In_Kaliningrad_999.html (http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Missiles_In_Kaliningrad_999.html)
-
Here's the whole of the AP article you linked to:
<<MOSCOW (AP) — President Dmitry Medvedev says Russia will deploy missiles in its Baltic Sea territory in response to U.S. missile defense plans.
<<Medvedev says the short-range Iskander missiles will be deployed to the Kaliningrad region which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. He has not said how many missiles will be deployed or whether they will be fitted with nuclear warheads.
<<He said in a state-of-the-nation speech Wednesday that Russia will also deploy equipment to conduct to electronically hamper the operation of prospective U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.
<<Medvedev said that Russia will also use navy resources as part of its response to the U.S. missile shield.>>
Interesting, eh? First of all, that the installation of missiles bordering Poland is IN RESPONSE TO U.S. missile defence plans. Secondly, in what the article FAILS to point out, that the actual "U.S. missile defense plans" involved stationing missile defences in Poland and Ukraine, which border on Russia.
Had the U.S. not decided to move its missile defences right on to the Russian border, the Russian move - - obviously a counter to the American provocation - - would not have been necessary. But the AP tries to paint America in the best light possible, by not explaining exactly what it was in the "U.S. missile shield" that constituted the provocation.
Again, making the U.S. or its Polish ally looking like the innocent victim and the Russians like the evil aggressors.
-
Here's the whole of the AP article you linked to:
<<MOSCOW (AP) — President Dmitry Medvedev says Russia will deploy missiles in its Baltic Sea territory in response to U.S. missile defense plans.
<<Medvedev says the short-range Iskander missiles will be deployed to the Kaliningrad region which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. He has not said how many missiles will be deployed or whether they will be fitted with nuclear warheads.
<<He said in a state-of-the-nation speech Wednesday that Russia will also deploy equipment to conduct to electronically hamper the operation of prospective U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.
<<Medvedev said that Russia will also use navy resources as part of its response to the U.S. missile shield.>>
Interesting, eh? First of all, that the installation of missiles bordering Poland is IN RESPONSE TO U.S. missile defence plans. Secondly, in what the article FAILS to point out, that the actual "U.S. missile defense plans" involved stationing missile defences in Poland and Ukraine, which border on Russia.
Had the U.S. not decided to move its missile defences right on to the Russian border, the Russian move - - obviously a counter to the American provocation - - would not have been necessary. But the AP tries to paint America in the best light possible, by not explaining exactly what it was in the "U.S. missile shield" that constituted the provocation.
Again, making the U.S. or its Polish ally looking like the innocent victim and the Russians like the evil aggressors.
How do you feel about Chenobyl? (excuse spelling).....or when they decided to disband the Soviet Union and left stock piles of radioactive material and weaponry all over their former borders to just rot and decay or be snatched up by despots?
Do you think that was also because of the evil Americans?
My guess about the break up is not because of quaking fear of the American Imperialist pigs... but more the fact that they were just plain broke.
-
The US has a right to defend itself.
But in Poland?
Do the Russians have a right to defend themselves in Alberta? St Pierre et Miquelon? Even Big Diomede?
-
Here's the whole of the AP article you linked to:
<<MOSCOW (AP) — President Dmitry Medvedev says Russia will deploy missiles in its Baltic Sea territory in response to U.S. missile defense plans.
<<Medvedev says the short-range Iskander missiles will be deployed to the Kaliningrad region which borders NATO members Poland and Lithuania. He has not said how many missiles will be deployed or whether they will be fitted with nuclear warheads.
<<He said in a state-of-the-nation speech Wednesday that Russia will also deploy equipment to conduct to electronically hamper the operation of prospective U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.
<<Medvedev said that Russia will also use navy resources as part of its response to the U.S. missile shield.>>
Interesting, eh? First of all, that the installation of missiles bordering Poland is IN RESPONSE TO U.S. missile defence plans. Secondly, in what the article FAILS to point out, that the actual "U.S. missile defense plans" involved stationing missile defences in Poland and Ukraine, which border on Russia.
Had the U.S. not decided to move its missile defences right on to the Russian border, the Russian move - - obviously a counter to the American provocation - - would not have been necessary. But the AP tries to paint America in the best light possible, by not explaining exactly what it was in the "U.S. missile shield" that constituted the provocation.
Again, making the U.S. or its Polish ally looking like the innocent victim and the Russians like the evil aggressors.
He can get away with this laughable statement because so few people are good at math .
Where the Anti missle facility is being erected it produces no sheild between Russia , and France or England , nothing for Norway or even Denmark there are no persons who are familiar with the meaning of the term "great circle" who beleive that the Russians are being serious.
The purpose of the missle sheild is as stated to defend from Iranian launches.
I said the Russian missles are just decorative and that is what I mean , he is postureing and poseing , he isn't thinking that NATO wants to invade and he won't do anything that is truely a threat.
I can't imagine Russia winning a missle fight with NATO ,they are entirely undefended. No one thnks there will be such a fight except those who are very poorly breifed on missle capability.
-
Matter of fact even Warsaw is not sheilded now that I look at a map.
-
I doubt that Warsaw is likely to ever be seriously threatened by Iran.
-
I doubt that Warsaw is likely to ever be seriously threatened by Iran.
Why not?
If NATO decides that it needs to prepare against attack from Iranian missles , what makes this idea even interesting for Russians?
The sheild is in fact not in between Russian missles and most of Nato , the Russians are not shy about saying stupid things in public.
-
<<How do you feel about Chenobyl? (excuse spelling).....>>
Horrible tragedy. How else can you feel about it? This was a fucking disaster and a lot of people died in it. I think people are still being poisoned by it.
<<or when they decided to disband the Soviet Union and left stock piles of radioactive material and weaponry all over their former borders to just rot and decay or be snatched up by despots?>>
Not as big a tragedy as Chernobyl but pretty fucked up.
<<Do you think that was also because of the evil Americans?>>
Yeah, I do, as a matter of fact. I regard the downfall of the Communist Party of Russia and the breakup of the U.S.S.R. as, next to the Holocaust, the greatest single tragedy of the 20th Century. Particularly when one thinks of the unbelievable sacrifices that had to be made to achieve communism there in the first place and to build the U.S.S.R. as the socialist motherland. Unfortunately I don't know what happened. There are a lot of books on the subject which I have not had the time to get into - - maybe when I finally retire - - but I am convinced that the traditional narrative ("traditional" here in the Western MSM) just doesn't ring true. The CP obviously bears a huge share of the blame, Gorbachev in particular, and he or his circle are a key part of it, but that kind of power shift doesn't just "happen."
One of the major factors has to be the rise of Hitler, abetted by British, French and American capital, originally as a bulwark against communism in Germany, and then later, as a Sorcerer's Apprentice who escapes the control of his benefactors. More than anything else, WWII undermined the foundations of the Soviet State, forced the state to make promises to its workers and peasants that the American policy of Cold War made it impossible to keep. But that's only my working hypothesis at this time. I've got a lot of reading to do before I come to any definitive conclusions, and really I don't know what those conclusions will be.
<<My guess about the break up is not because of quaking fear of the American Imperialist pigs... but more the fact that they were just plain broke.>>
Yeah, "just plain broke." And how did that happen? Considering that in the 1930s, they were the world's fastest-growing economy and probably the most rapidly-industrializing nation in history, how was it that after WWII, they became "just plain broke?" Any ideas?
-
My guess about the break up is not because of quaking fear of the American Imperialist pigs... but more the fact that they were just plain broke.
After conquering half the worlds resorces and makeing it all property of the state , how could they be broke?
Or does this question answer itself?
I credit Mattias Rust , who flew a very ordinary aircraft into Moscow and landed on Red Square, reveiling that all of the sacrifices that had been made for the sake of defence were of no practical effect , their actual safety depended on the peaceful nature of European democracys and all of that sacrifice was demanded to stave off an invasion that no one wated to mount.
-
One of the major factors has to be the rise of Hitler, abetted by British, French and American capital, originally as a bulwark against communism in Germany, and then later, as a Sorcerer's Apprentice who escapes the control of his benefactors. More than anything else, WWII undermined the foundations of the Soviet State, forced the state to make promises to its workers and peasants that the American policy of Cold War made it impossible to keep. But that's only my working hypothesis at this time. I've got a lot of reading to do before I come to any definitive conclusions, and really I don't know what those conclusions will be.
Are you accuseing Chamberlin or Chirchill?
This is extremely backwards , the German Army never secured a treaty to get training from any government in Paris ,London, or Washington. They got the treaty for training and equipping from Lenin and Stalin. If the Germans were a bulwark against Communism , then what was that all about?
The Soviet government had chosen an airfield in the northwestern outskirts of Lipetsk, where a RKKA Air Forces unit was based, as the site where the German airmen would be trained.
The Germans appointed Major Walter Schtaar, who during the First World War was a fighter detachment commander on the Western Front, to head the Lipetsk Flying School. He held this job for 5 years despite rather unflattering references about him by the UGPU ("...a follower of Hindenburg, a Nazi of stern temper, demanding, and merciless. He is extremely hostile towards Soviet power and cannot tolerate Russians"). Such untypical tolerance on the part of the Bolsheviks towards such an attitude could only be explained by their acute interest in military cooperation with the Reichswehr at that time.
http://www.airpages.ru/cgi-bin/epg.pl?nav=ru11&page=lipetsk
Results of the school's first year of work were summed up during a spring 1926 meeting of Soviet and German Air force commanders. Senior Lieutenant Wilberg, Chief of the Reichswehr Aviation Department, announced plans to expand the activities of the fighter school and to establish a training detachment of reconnaissance aircraft to train observers and conduct experiments in aerial photography. The Soviet side supported all these suggestions. Military Commissar R. A. Muklevich, one of the RKKA Air Forces leaders, made this statement at the meeting: "You can count on total assistance and support on our part. ...Everything is based on ideological cooperation".
-
<<Where the Anti missle facility is being erected it produces no sheild between Russia , and France or England , nothing for Norway or even Denmark there are no persons who are familiar with the meaning of the term "great circle" who beleive that the Russians are being serious.>>
You might have more credibility for this statement if you could show a map anywhere with the location of the missile shield bases and the NATO countries and Iran. I find your argument particularly hard to credit, since Russian missiles can probably launch other missiles from various points in their trajectories, whereas the Iranians would not be likely to have that kind of technology.
What you are saying, in effect, is that the Russians are lying when they say why they are placing their missiles in Kaliningrad, but that they are so fucking stupid as to make up lies that anyone with access to an atlas can disprove. I find, on the contrary, it is the Americans who make up stupid bullshit that anyone with half a brain can see through, and the Russians, while not innately more clever than Americans, to my knowledge, are at least less transparently untruthful in their public utterances.
-
<<Where the Anti missle facility is being erected it produces no sheild between Russia , and France or England , nothing for Norway or even Denmark there are no persons who are familiar with the meaning of the term "great circle" who beleive that the Russians are being serious.>>
You might have more credibility for this statement if you could show a map anywhere with the location of the missile shield bases and the NATO countries and Iran. I find your argument particularly hard to credit, since Russian missiles can probably launch other missiles from various points in their trajectories, whereas the Iranians would not be likely to have that kind of technology.
What you are saying, in effect, is that the Russians are lying when they say why they are placing their missiles in Kaliningrad, but that they are so fucking stupid as to make up lies that anyone with access to an atlas can disprove. I find, on the contrary, it is the Americans who make up stupid bullshit that anyone with half a brain can see through, and the Russians, while not innately more clever than Americans, to my knowledge, are at least less transparently untruthful in their public utterances.
Use any location in Poland .
Draw the great circle route between the northern edge of Poland and Paris.
Note how much Russian territory is north of that line.
No protection north of a line like that .
Yes the Russian statements and actions are quite stupid, they are depending on the dearth of persons who know Balistics.
I don't think that any rocket scientist is fooled , probly not anyone that can operate a cannon either.
-
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS275&q=Kaliningrad&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS275&q=Kaliningrad&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&resnum=1&ct=title)
-
<<After conquering half the worlds resorces and makeing it all property of the state , how could they be broke?>>
Maybe you could be more specific about "conquering half the world's resources." What the hell are you talking about? As far as I could tell, they "conquered" a few East European shit-holes like Poland and Hungary and a few others, most of which were almost as broken down by the ravages of war as the U.S.S.R. itself. You sure seem to exist in some kind of dream world unrelated to any reality I ever heard of.
The German occupation destroyed Russia's greatest resource, the Russian people themselves, some 35 million of whom were killed in the war. And not randomly, either. It was standard German practice on moving into an occupied town or village to assemble the (non-Jewish) inhabitants and sort them for "labour procurement" - - carpenters, over here! metal-workers, here! Anyone who can read or write? Anyone with post-secondary education? over here. The search for "intellectuals" wasn't really for labour procurement, however. These were the guys who were just taken out and shot. The destruction of the Jews was the destruction of the best part of the Russian and Party intelligensia and that also was not random, it was wholesale. You seem to think all that is made up by inheriting the ruins of Warsaw and Budapest - - boy are you naive!
The great industrial dams and power plants of the Soviet economy were painstakingly and methodically destroyed, not by the happenstance of bombing raids, but on the ground, where every last detail could be attended to to see that nothing would be salvaged.
Your sunny and optimistic fairy tale of how easy the Russians had it is nauseating in the extreme. They were put through a wringer which left them gasping, with a decimated population which had been promised a new life after the war, and instead of a new life, they were forced again to begin preparation from the ruins for a defence against their former allies, now surrounding them with bases and cozying up to their former Nazi persecutors. The outlines of what happened are sort of clarifying but I admit I don't know what the real story is. I know it's probably not the way you say it is.
<<Or does this question answer itself?>>
It should, but for some of us, apparently, it does not.
<<I credit Mattias Rust , who flew a very ordinary aircraft into Moscow and landed on Red Square, reveiling that all of the sacrifices that had been made for the sake of defence were of no practical effect >>
I just don't believe any of that's true, there was a big difference between Mattias Rust and an incoming missile, it's quite possible that nobody wanted to shoot down a two-seater civilian plane (although after Sept. 11, I'm sure that wouldn't be the case) but you are correct in that a discrepancy between the truth and the propaganda, particularly about living standards in the West, could no longer be kept from the people.
We met an American in Russia visiting family in the Ukraine who told us that his uncle was boasting of his dirt-floored farm house and all its primitive amenities and seemed to take it for granted that it was so much better than the appalling conditions under which American farm families were living; the uncle basically threw the kid out of the house when he tried to convince him that the American farmers had indoor plumbing, running hot water and all the real amenities. Just wouldn't believe it. I read of other Russians being very embittered to finally learn how much better the conquered Germans were living than they were themselves. It didn't seem right, particularly in view of the wartime sacrifices and the promises that the leaders had made of the life they would enjoy after the inevitable victory.
I think the Party should have leveled with the people, told them that the sacrifices would have to continue and presented them with a plan for ultimate victory over the West. But how, when the West had, at least temporarily, a nuclear monopoly?
<<their actual safety depended on the peaceful nature of European democracys and all of that sacrifice was demanded to stave off an invasion that no one wated to mount.>>
Are you nuts? You know how many times they'd already been invaded and/or sabotaged by the "peaceful European democracies?" or by the U.S.A. and even Canada? How can you even write that crap with a straight face?
-
<<I don't think that any rocket scientist is fooled , probly not anyone that can operate a cannon either.>>
I unfortunately am not a rocket scientist or a cannoneer or a ballistics expert and so I wouldn't attempt to embarrass myself drawing great circle routes on an atlas.
But.
If it's really all that simple, why doesn't the U.S.A. produce one single academic from a great school with all the necessary qualifications and let him or her say for public consumption, "Hey. This Russian claim is bullshit. There is no way etc. etc.?"
It hasn't happened. The U.S. has allowed the Russians to embarrass itself with claims that only plane can refute? PLEEEEZE.
-
There are great circle calculators on the web.
-
You'll note that the great circle path from St. Petersburg to Paris goes well to the north of Poland.
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=LED-CDG)
-
Like I'm going to go on the web, find a great circle calculator, find the location of the American bases in Poland, make great circle calculations from various launch points in Russia, see what could be reached by a great-circle flight path . . .
all the while not knowing what missiles could be launched on what paths from what point of a great-circle trajectory or even IF every rocket launched need follow a great circle trajectory . . .
Yeah lotsa luck.
I prefer to leave it at this - - if the Russians say they are threatened by the missile shield defences being placed where they are, i.e., that they are being robbed of the deterrent value of a second-strike potential - - then I will just take them at their word until the U.S. produces some reputable scientist from an academic environment who will publicly say they are full of shit.
-
No, actually Plane was correct.
Calculate a great circle line from Paris to the furthest north point of Poland, and extend this line into Russia. Anywhere north of this line can hit Paris without flying over Poland (such as St. Petersburg). Do the same thing for Paris to the farthest south point of Poland, and extend that line into Russia. Anything south of this line can also hit Paris without flying over Poland. Two lines (actually curves) are all that is needed. Or look at a globe and use a piece of yarn (same thing).
Simple physics.
-
<<You'll note that the great circle path from St. Petersburg to Paris goes well to the north of Poland.>>
Beautiful. Now let's see St. Petersburg to Lyon, or Marseilles, or Rome or Naples.
And Poland seems close enough to the part of the trajectory that overflies the Baltic. Who says the shield has to sit squarely athwart the trajectory? Why can't a Polish site intercept the Russian missile over the Baltic?
And while you're at it, let's see the trajectories of any rockets launched in flight from a mother rocket.
I don't know jack-shit about rocketry but I can keep raising questions as long as you keep throwing up factoids. That's why there are experts, real experts, not do-it-yourself armchair experts like me, whose opinions on matters like this don't mean jackshit.
When the U.S. produces a credible expert with a solid academic reputation at a leading university who is willing to go on the record to say that the Polish defences can't protect a NATO site, then I'll give it some credence, and otherwise I won't.
-
Beautiful. Now let's see St. Petersburg to Lyon, or Marseilles, or Rome or Naples.
Here they are, but a better choice for hitting those (if your goal was to avoid Poland) would be be from a southern site, like maybe Volgodonsk (shown below as well).
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=LED-LYN)
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=LED-MRS)
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=LED-ROM)
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=LED-NAP)
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=VLK-LYN)
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=VLK-MRS)
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=VLK-ROM)
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=VLK-NAP)
And while you're at it, let's see the trajectories of any rockets launched in flight from a mother rocket.
They would follow the original rocket's trajectory closely. The distance outside the original trajectory that they could arrive at are based on how early or late they're deployed, but the MIRVs that Russia uses don't stray far from the original trajectory.
-
When were they invaded by a democracy?
-
Neat trajectories. Thanks.
So to hit Rome from St. Petersburg, the rocket has to fly right through the middle of Poland. And La Bella Napoli, pretty much the same. A little to the south of the centre line, but pretty much through the middle of the country. And wasn't it the Italians who sent their troops to die in Iraq for the pleasure of George W. Bush when the French wouldn't even dream of it?
This is starting to make some sense after all. Even on YOUR terms.
And while we're at it, does the missile shield base have to lie athwart the trajectory, or can it fire into the trajectory from an angle, from Poland to a point over the Baltic, for example?
-
When the U.S. produces a credible expert with a solid academic reputation at a leading university who is willing to go on the record to say that the Polish defences can't protect a NATO site, then I'll give it some credence, and otherwise I won't.
No surprise there ya snow-blowing commie.
-
And while we're at it, does the missile shield base have to lie athwart the trajectory, or can it fire into the trajectory from an angle, from Poland to a point over the Baltic, for example?
Depends on the missile defense system.
But, of course, we know they don't work, right?
-
So to hit Rome from St. Petersburg, the rocket has to fly right through the middle of Poland.
Yeah, that's why I provided an alternate launch point in southern Russia.
-
<<When were they invaded by a democracy?>>
Russia was invaded by England, the U.S.A. and Canada and bombed by the French (perhaps invaded as well, I don't really know, my mother-in-law was in Odessa when the French bombed it, which is my own little indirect connection to that event) during 1918 or 19 to 1921 or 22 during the Russian Civil War. I don't know if Poland and Czechoslovakia qualified as democracies at the time, but the Polish Army and the Czech Legion also took part in the invasions. There were probably other Allied powers which invaded Russia then.
I think of the Nazi invasion as invasion by proxy - - a proxy gone mad and out of control, but nevertheless a proxy of Western capitalism. A lot of Russians have the same idea. Hitler had a lot of help from friends in the west, Henry Ford was one of the better known ones, but there were plenty of others.
-
Neat trajectories. Thanks.
So to hit Rome from St. Petersburg, the rocket has to fly right through the middle of Poland. And La Bella Napoli, pretty much the same. A little to the south of the centre line, but pretty much through the middle of the country. And wasn't it the Italians who sent their troops to die in Iraq for the pleasure of George W. Bush when the French wouldn't even dream of it?
This is starting to make some sense after all. Even on YOUR terms.
And while we're at it, does the missile shield base have to lie athwart the trajectory, or can it fire into the trajectory from an angle, from Poland to a point over the Baltic, for example?
It needs to be in the line or nearly , the more to the side it is the more it increases the challenge of intercept.
The missle instalation even if it was all over Poland would not cast enough shadow to sheild Nato Territory from Russian territory , and there is not a present plan to install the number required to make a dent in a Russian salvo .
But consider the more modest Iranian territory and resorces and you can see that more of Nato territory is protedcted from Iran than from Russia by this instalation.
But why do the Russians care? I do not think that their rocket scientists are this stupid and their politicians can get the explanation better than I can give it from them.
I think this is a politically usefull lie and that is about all.
It may be strictly to impress Russians , their leadership knows we don't need to invade or bomb them by now.
-
<<Depends on the missile defense system.
<<But, of course, we know they don't work, right?>>
Weren't Saddam's missiles shot down by Patriots on the way from Iraq to Tel Aviv? Some of them, anyway? (I know they don't work 100% because my sister-in-law in Ramat Gan saw a house on her own block get hit by a missile.)
From the maps, it looked to me like a Polish defence station would be a great place to shoot from at Russian missiles crossing the Baltic. Anyway, those Russians seem like nice, solid God-fearin' folks to me - - why'd they get all riled up so if the Polish bases weren't such a threat to them? Didn't George W. Bush look into Putin's eyes and see a good ole boy there?
-
I think of the Nazi invasion as invasion by proxy - - a proxy gone mad and out of control, but nevertheless a proxy of Western capitalism. A lot of Russians have the same idea. Hitler had a lot of help from friends in the west, Henry Ford was one of the better known ones, but there were plenty of others.
I know that Hitler had American admirerers in the Thirtys , but so did Stalin , no more and no less.
I have even heard of Canadians admireing Stalin , but I consider it a wild leap to accuse them of Stalins decisions.
-
<<Depends on the missile defense system.
<<But, of course, we know they don't work, right?>>
Weren't Saddam's missiles shot down by Patriots on the way from Iraq to Tel Aviv? Some of them, anyway? (I know they don't work 100% because my sister-in-law in Ramat Gan saw a house on her own block get hit by a missile.)
About 50%
A decade of improvements since then , but the SCUD is a 1950's missle so the Russians could fire stuff that has been improved for sixty years since the SCUD was designed.
Why worry about it tho?
If in Poland thre is an instalation that can intercept a few missles that the Russians do not really want to shoot anyway why do they care?
-
It would be nice if you guys would be consistent.
We shouldn't spend money on SDI ("Star Wars") because it can't possibly work, but even if it doesn't work, Russia is justified in being mad at us for working on a system that won't work.
And, of course, Russia gets a pass on their own version of missile defense. So does China, I guess.
-
<<If in Poland thre is an instalation that can intercept a few missles that the Russians do not really want to shoot anyway why do they care?>>
That's obvious. If those "few missiles" represent a second-strike capability, the Russians don't want their deterrent cut off at the knees. They'd be that much more vulnerable to a first strike.
-
<<I know that Hitler had American admirerers in the Thirtys , but so did Stalin , no more and no less.
<<I have even heard of Canadians admireing Stalin , but I consider it a wild leap to accuse them of Stalins decisions.>>
This goes way beyond the issue of "admirers." The issue is one of support and backing by powerful individuals who can provide tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, industrial partnerships and more.
And, you're losing sight of your own point.
-
<<It would be nice if you guys would be consistent.>>
the hobgoblin of little minds, eh?
<<We shouldn't spend money on SDI ("Star Wars") because it can't possibly work, but even if it doesn't work, Russia is justified in being mad at us for working on a system that won't work.>>
Dunno who yer quotin' there, but it ain't me.
<<And, of course, Russia gets a pass on their own version of missile defense. So does China, I guess.>>
Russia is the victim of multiple invasions, the U.S. is not. So yeah, let Russia have all the missile defences it wants. But THAT'S not the issue. The issue is whether the U.S.A. should be allowed to set up its missile shield on Russia's doorstep, thereby depriving it of a credible deterrent.
-
<<I know that Hitler had American admirerers in the Thirtys , but so did Stalin , no more and no less.
<<I have even heard of Canadians admireing Stalin , but I consider it a wild leap to accuse them of Stalins decisions.>>
This goes way beyond the issue of "admirers." The issue is one of support and backing by powerful individuals who can provide tens, maybe hundreds of millions of dollars, industrial partnerships and more.
And, you're losing sight of your own point.
I amn willing to go off on your tangent.
Hitler did not find any more helpers from England and the US than Stalin did , what is the diffrence?
Oh, that Stalins party was more famouis for shooting wealthy people? I guess I can see that being a diffrence.
I had forgotten about the invasions in the early Soviet History , too bad they could not have set things right.
-
That's obvious. If those "few missiles" represent a second-strike capability, the Russians don't want their deterrent cut off at the knees. They'd be that much more vulnerable to a first strike.
Missiles used for missile defense are "kinetic kill" varieties - they do not have warheads, and therefore they cannot used be for "second strike" on ground targets.
-
The issue is whether the U.S.A. should be allowed to set up its missile shield on Russia's doorstep, thereby depriving it of a credible deterrent.
When Russia developed it's missile defense system, they deprived the US of a credible deterrent. So, we're justified.
However, the installation in Poland would provide very little defense from Russian missles.
-
<<When Russia developed it's missile defense system, they deprived the US of a credible deterrent. So, we're justified.>>
But it is the U.S. which is the aggressor and the threat to world peace. They don't NEED a credible deterrent. All they gotta do is stop attacking their neighbours.
-
But it is the U.S. which is the aggressor and the threat to world peace. They don't NEED a credible deterrent. All they gotta do is stop attacking their neighbours.
You really believe that, don't you?
-
<<When Russia developed it's missile defense system, they deprived the US of a credible deterrent. So, we're justified.>>
But it is the U.S. which is the aggressor and the threat to world peace. They don't NEED a credible deterrent. All they gotta do is stop attacking their neighbours.
This isn't an attack on Russia , they are just accuseing us in a rather stupid way.
It is as if I were to say that the Citadel in Halifax was a threat to the USA because its cannons could wreck American Shipping.
Just because Halifaxian cannons don't have the range to be a threat is a mere detail I can skip over.
If the Russians want to assuse us of cutting off their second strike capability with a weapon stationed poorly to do so and tho it would not be up to doing so even if it were stationed better ,let them.
Every engineer in the world , and anyone elese intelligent enough to understand the explanation ,can laugh at them , that is harmless isn't it?
I don't expect that Russia will actually use missles to bomb the NATO territory that it can , Russia needs those people to buy its fuel.
I also do not expect Europeans , even Poles, to invade Russia or bomb Russia or need to , if Europe has a Hitler comeing into power now I haven't heard of him yet.
-
<<Hitler did not find any more helpers from England and the US than Stalin did , what is the diffrence?>>
The difference is that Hitler was helped by Westerners who were in the ruling class and often influenced governmental and institutional actions, such as the Bank of England's freezing the reserves of the Spanish Republic during the Spanish Civil War. The help that wealthy industrialists such as Henry Ford and others provided was instrumental in helping him to power and consolidating his rule. It is just coming out now, for example, that IBM was instrumental in the Holocaust through the provision of state-of-the-art punch-card computers, complete with trainers and technicians, that enabled Hitler to keep track of all the Jews in German-controlled territory.
Stalin had some Western support, but it came from the rebels and outsiders of the West, not its ruling class or industrialists and the support he received was mostly moral.
Bottom line is that the industrialized Western nations gave Hitler material support that helped him in his struggle to power, and to Stalin, they gave with one hand subversion and armed intervention and with the other hand, from the rebels and outcasts of their own society, moral support.
Once again plane, you demonstrate to me a really bizarre lack of common sense and proportionality. As in, "they gassed the Jews but we bombed Dresden" or here "Stalin had his admirers, Hitler had his admirers," as if the one balanced out the other when in reality there is no comparison. Everything in life doesn't reduce down to neat little balances, there IS such a thing as proportionality and only a complete lack of common sense or a dyed-in-the-wool bias could keep you from recognizing it.
-
Once again plane, you demonstrate to me a really bizarre lack of common sense and proportionality. As in, "they gassed the Jews but we bombed Dresden" or here "Stalin had his admirers, Hitler had his admirers," as if the one balanced out the other when in reality there is no comparison. Everything in life doesn't reduce down to neat little balances, there IS such a thing as proportionality and only a complete lack of common sense or a dyed-in-the-wool bias could keep you from recognizing it.
I would not have said that, but I do say that if Ford helped Hitler he helped no more than Lenin and Stalin helped the German Army.
If IBM sold Germany the Punch card machines that the US was useing for its own census shouldm we assume that IBM was told that the punchcard system was going to be used to facilitate murders? The primary use of IBM machines is much less criminal , I don't think that the USSR has this excuse in its helping to reestablish German Airforce Artillery and tank capabilitys.The uses of Fighter Aircraft , tanks and artillery don't include anything that would not breech the Versaills treaty.
Put it in purportion as you please ,Stalin was a monster in the same league as Hitler, the evidence is availible more now than ever , but I don't blame FDR for makeing an ally of "Uncle Joe" , it was nessacery . Later on Pinochet becams another distastefull ally , much the same , he filled a need against a greater threat. The US government never made an Ally of the Natzis even though we had some fans of them here and it got discussed , if Stalin had seemed more of a threat than hitler WWII could have been played in reverse with the English Canadians and US aligning with Germany .
Fortunately for Stalin Hitler was not really as smart as he thought himself , and all efforts in that direction failed.
-
Later on Pinochet becams another distastefull ally , much the same , he filled a need against a greater threat.
====================
Now that is truly stupid.
What threat did Salvador Allende's Chile pose to the US?
The Chilean people ELECTED Allende. The Conservative Party got maybe 25% f the vote in a three way election. Nixon and Kissinger's aid to Pinochet was treachery to a fellow OAS nation, not some sort of necessary counter to a threat.
There is no way Chile is or will ever be, a threat to the US. That is sheer bullcrap of the foulest sort.
Chile: a dagger pointed straight at the heart of Antarctica?
-
Later on Pinochet becams another distastefull ally , much the same , he filled a need against a greater threat.
====================
Now that is truly stupid.
What threat did Salvador Allende's Chile pose to the US?
The Chilean people ELECTED Allende. The Conservative Party got maybe 25% f the vote in a three way election. Nixon and Kissinger's aid to Pinochet was treachery to a fellow OAS nation, not some sort of necessary counter to a threat.
There is no way Chile is or will ever be, a threat to the US. That is sheer bullcrap of the foulest sort.
Chile: a dagger pointed straight at the heart of Antarctica?
I think the Communist aim was a Communist South American contenent , the US aim was certainly to prevent a Communist South American contenent.
Hugo Cheves would have had a lot more troubble with us twenty five years ago than he has now , I think the anti communist effort is fadeing at the same rate that the perceived Communist threat is.
-
What the F*ck do you have have against people electing whomever they choose? Where th the Hell do you get off?
It is none of the US's business who people elect democratically to lead them. NONE!
You want to know why people hate Americans? This stupid attitude is a prime example.
-
<<Oh, that Stalins party was more famouis for shooting wealthy people? I guess I can see that being a diffrence.>>
Since the Russian CP is so "famous" for shooting wealthy people, I'm sure you'll be able to provide us all with a short list of all those wealthy people they shot.
-
<<Missiles used for missile defense are "kinetic kill" varieties - they do not have warheads, and therefore they cannot used be for "second strike" on ground targets.>>
I'm not sure what your point was in bringing this up. It was never my position that after destroying a Russian second strike from Polish bases, that those bases would then be used for strikes on Russian ground targets.
Although now that you mention it, who would really know if some first-strike missiles weren't also gonna be snuck onto those Polish bases as well?
Looks now like the Russians aren't going to take any chances. They are letting the Poles know that fucking with the Russians will bring instant annihilation.
-
<<You really believe that, don't you?>>
That the U.S. is the major threat to world peace? Of course I believe it. So does most of the world. And history bears it out, too.
-
<<Every engineer in the world , and anyone elese intelligent enough to understand the explanation ,can laugh at them , that is harmless isn't it?>>
I have not seen a single respected academic state publicly that the U.S. missile shield in Poland would not weaken Russia's missile deterrent against NATO. Let alone laugh it off. As usual, you are reporting fiction as fact.
<<I don't expect that Russia will actually use missles to bomb the NATO territory that it can , Russia needs those people to buy its fuel.>>
You're not even making sense any more. The Russian deterrent is a second strike, i.e., a response by Russia to a first strike against it. What did you really expect would happen after a NATO first strike on Russia? That they would dial up their attackers the next morning and ask them if they still wanted those 80 million barrels they ordered yesterday?
<<I also do not expect Europeans , even Poles, to invade Russia or bomb Russia or need to , if Europe has a Hitler comeing into power now I haven't heard of him yet.>>
Believe me, if there's ever a new Hitler, he's a lot more likely to have a Texas accent than a German one.
-
Believe me, if there's ever a new Hitler, he's a lot more likely to have a Texas accent than a German one.
===============================================================
Jeb Bush is out of work at the moment, and there's always young Prescott Bush. Can't expect him to go into the enchilada business, either.
-
Funny...I never noted a texas accent in Obama's speech. Wow, who knew
-
<<Every engineer in the world , and anyone elese intelligent enough to understand the explanation ,can laugh at them , that is harmless isn't it?>>
I have not seen a single respected academic state publicly that the U.S. missile shield in Poland would not weaken Russia's missile deterrent against NATO. Let alone laugh it off. As usual, you are reporting fiction as fact.
<<I don't expect that Russia will actually use missles to bomb the NATO territory that it can , Russia needs those people to buy its fuel.>>
You're not even making sense any more. The Russian deterrent is a second strike, i.e., a response by Russia to a first strike against it. What did you really expect would happen after a NATO first strike on Russia? That they would dial up their attackers the next morning and ask them if they still wanted those 80 million barrels they ordered yesterday?
<<I also do not expect Europeans , even Poles, to invade Russia or bomb Russia or need to , if Europe has a Hitler comeing into power now I haven't heard of him yet.>>
Believe me, if there's ever a new Hitler, he's a lot more likely to have a Texas accent than a German one.
Suppose that Europe attacked Russia and succeeded with practicly no cost .
It had better be spring , because in the winter they will be frozen the next day.
There is not a reason for Europe to attack Russia anymore the day of empires is past and they can't make it pay.
Russian politicians tho can make a play on public credulousness and fear , exploiting the xenophobia Russians are famous for.
I have not seen a single respected academic state publicly that the U.S. missile shield in Poland would not weaken Russia's missile deterrent against NATO. Let alone laugh it off. As usual, you are reporting fiction as fact.
Are you trying to insult me ?
I am the authority that has told you this and I have provided proofs that cannot be refuted drawn from my small knoledge of ballistics. You cannot just say it isn't true because the authority is me , show me how my math is wrong.
-
You cannot just say it isn't true because the authority is me , show me how my math is wrong.
========
Wouldn't you need to show your math first, for anyone to criticize it?
-
You cannot just say it isn't true because the authority is me , show me how my math is wrong.
========
Wouldn't you need to show your math first, for anyone to criticize it?
All right ,draw arcs representing the great circle routes that impinge on the northernmost Polish territory and the southernmost polish territory tilt the northern ones west side as far south as you can while still includeing Russian territory to its north, tilt the southern ones west side as far north as you can while still includeing Russian territory and still representing great circles.
The area between the northern and southern arcs is the area that in theroy could be protected fron Russian missle attack by anti missle missles in Poland if Poland was covered thick with them.
Oh wait ,looks as if AMI has produced this graphic already.
Rather than attempt this exercise just scroll up to the previous post where this is already done.
-
No amount of silly arcs will show how any base in Poland could possibly protect any part of the US from imaginary Iranian missiles.
-
No amount of silly arcs will show how any base in Poland could possibly protect any part of the US from imaginary Iranian missiles.
I see that you accept my point that the Russians are lieing their heads off about the missles in Poland weakening their attack strength.
Thank you .
As for protecting from Iran that is diffrent .
If you were to draw all of the great circles that are shared by Iran and Poland , you would see it form a wide stripe around the planet , subtract the part that is past the range of the missles and the part in the wrong direction and the remaining arcs represent the potential "shadow " cast in the Iranian capability by antimissles in Poland.
Because Iran is not as wide as Russia , the shadow is a lot more usefully placed and wide.
Now you may think arcs silly , if you are an anti intellectual sort , but I actually like questions that are limited in scope enough that mathmatics can give complete answers to them.
-
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=THR-DCA)
From To Initial Heading Distance
THR (35°41'21"N 51°18'48"E) DCA (38°51'07"N 77°02'16"W) 322° (NW) 6337 mi
THR (35°41'21"N 51°18'48"E) DCA (38°51'07"N 77°02'16"W) 322° (NW) 6337 mi
I tried the Applet that AMIanthus found and sure enough the great circle between Teran and Washington passes right over the anti missles in Poland.
Did you know that if you throw a ball across your yard (ignoreing aerodynamics) it follows a parabola in the direction of the great circle route from its launch to its landing.
I am trying to think of a projectile that does not ....?
I don't think there are exceptions , if a balistic projectile departs form a great circle route it has a force applied to it after launch.
-
Ami
Does a projectile that crosses over the pole or goes to high lattitudes at a high speed depart from the great circle route because the earth turns under it?
More than lower lattitudes?
-
Does a projectile that crosses over the pole or goes to high lattitudes at a high speed depart from the great circle route because the earth turns under it?
More than lower lattitudes?
Some. Actually, the higher the speed, the less the earth will turn during it's flight time.
BTW, I played around with more paths that would require a flyover of Poland, looks like the entire eastern seaboard of the US is blocked by missile defense sites in Poland - anything west of that would require flying over Canada, and we already have missile defense sites there.
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=thr-mia&PATH-COLOR=red)
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=thr-msy&PATH-COLOR=red)
(http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gcmap?PATH=thr-lax&PATH-COLOR=red)
-
I see that you accept my point that the Russians are lieing their heads off about the missles in Poland weakening their attack strength.
Thank you .
=========================
I accept nothing. If the Russians were to install a base anywhere in Canada, to defend against anything, most of the US Congress wod go into heebie-jeebies. Well, here the US is, proposing a base in Poland, and the Russians have understandably gone into their own heebie-jeebies, and you think that this is somehow irrational? Why?
The Russians naturally decide to install missiles on their own territory, and then THIS becomes an occasion for the US "experts" tpo go apeshit.
The Iranian ,missiles are FICTITOUS, and fitted with warheads that are mythical. What would Iran gain by attacking the US? Iran depends on selling oil for its survival. As such, an easily installed bloackade of the Gulf of Hormuz would shut them down totally.
Ispend to goddamn many years being told that I should "duck and cover" and hide under my desk at school because of far less, but still entirely unthreatening Soviet missiles. It was crap, all crap then. Now the same bunch of morons decide that puny Iran is a similar threat, and I am supposed to buy that?
Don't even bother to unhook the screen door. We are not buying that.
-
The Russians naturally decide to install missiles on their own territory, and then THIS becomes an occasion for the US "experts" tpo go apeshit.
No , this is not happening.
These are not new missles and where they were was no less threatening than where they are now , no "experts " are haveing any Heebie Jeebies , what would make you think so?
The Russian Prime Minister has stated on prime time that the world is flat , and I "plane talker" noticed it .
I haven't found any missle expert actually saying that the threat on NATO is increased , and the idea that the threat on Russia is increased is politicly motivated even tho phisicly impossible.
If Mexico publicly bragged that they were indevelopment of missles that could obliterate Moscow would anti missle emplacements in US territory to protect Moscow be a good idea? I don't see why not The closer to the launch site the anti missle system can be put ,the more effective it can be .
I note you are here accuseing the Iranians of bald faced lieing , keep up the good work.
-
Why would Iranians NOT lie about their missiles? Lying costs nothing. They enjoy scaring Israelis, and Israelis enjoy being scared. Every one in the Middle East likes being a martyr. Martyrdom and Guilt are the main features of both Islam and Judaism.
Saddam lied about his missiles. Israeli continues to deny they have nukes. If you have something, the rule is to lie and say you don't. If you lack something, the rule is that you say you have it.
-
The Russian Prime Minister has stated on prime time that the world is flat , and I "plane talker" noticed it .
The world is not flat, and will never be flat. I doubt that Putin has ever claimed that the world is flat, either.
-
Mr Literal, strikes again
-
The Russian Prime Minister has stated on prime time that the world is flat , and I "plane talker" noticed it .
The world is not flat, and will never be flat. I doubt that Putin has ever claimed that the world is flat, either.
====================================
Okay, in what figurative sense did Putin say the world is flat, if indeed he did say it?
-
The Russian Prime Minister has stated on prime time that the world is flat , and I "plane talker" noticed it .
The world is not flat, and will never be flat. I doubt that Putin has ever claimed that the world is flat, either.
====================================
Okay, in what figurative sense did Putin say the world is flat, if indeed he did say it?
President Dmitry Medvedev said it , I am sorry I should not have said Prime minister .
But yes to ignore the fact of great circle routes is to ignore that the world is round, to state that Poland sheilds more than a small fraction of NATO territory from Russian launched missles ignores these facts .
He is literally talking as if the world was flat .
If you don't beleive that arcs can prove things , then you have little faith in mathmatics.
-
If you don't beleive that arcs can prove things , then you have little faith in mathmatics.
======================================
I do not believe that arcs will cause Iranians to have missiles to shoot at me. They have no warheads, nor do they have missiles with sufficient range.
-
If you don't beleive that arcs can prove things , then you have little faith in mathmatics.
======================================
I do not believe that arcs will cause Iranians to have missiles to shoot at me. They have no warheads, nor do they have missiles with sufficient range.
Then you beleive Iranians lie officially.
I agree with that too , but why not prepare in case they are telling the truth?
-
Obama chats with Medvedev on phone
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/09/obama_chats_with_medvedev_on_phone/ (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/09/obama_chats_with_medvedev_on_phone/)