US considers deploying missiles to counter alleged Russian nuke treaty violation

More precisely - around the Rockefeller, Rothschild and others. Obama - a doll.

 

Obama certainly is a warmonger isn't he? What do you expect from a war criminal?

 

http://www.ronpaul.com/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/

The backing up of the dollar with "confidence" is not acceptable by any country. Every country of the world backs up their currency with gold and silver. If your assumption is correct, several years ago -before you were born- Fort Knox should have been turned down and the gold distributed somewhere else.

What Russia attempts are is to create a new economic block in the Eastern area of the world. China has already introduced its own international bank which has been accepted even by England.

First step by China and Russia is to bypass the US dollar

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/20/russia-china-bankdeal.html

Second step is to start a new international bank at the altitude of other worldwide banks.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...l-system-shake-up-australia-should-be-part-of

Notice in the article that Australia welcomes it. And today, other European countries are also giving their approval and are interested to invest in this new bank.

Several countries are in agreement with this new bank but the US. The new Chinese bank is an open door to start a coalition that I mentioned before, which is to maintain Iran on their side in order to stop NATO's ambitions of destroying the Asian economies in order to continue in power over the glove.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/china-protests-us-sanctions-against-chinese-bank

Wars are made mostly by economical reasons. Nobody around the world cares who is the president of the US, they want to be paid, and the dollar is not a trustable currency. Twenty years ago this problem wasn't an issue, but today with a global system of communication the crude reality is told everywhere. The US is increasing its army bases even in South America, not for protecting these countries but as a way to create fear of a US military invasion. Many countries are not friendly to the US anymore, they only fear of the reprisals.

What anyone can observe looking at the globe map and comparing the daily news, one can notice that neither China nor Russia have any attempt to invade any country. But, the only one furious as a hyena in a arid and hot week looking for a prey to kill is NATO.

Show here the Russian advances trying to invade other countries. Show here the Chinese army developing in other sites of the world.

See?

The only one looking for blood running like crazy is NATO.

 

Sorry, but that "article" is nothing but a big steaming pile of crap.

OK, let's try to look at what is said, and not said, shall we?

Yes, the Administration is looking at putting missiles in Eastern Europe. That much is true. Specifically the SM-3 in fixed positions known as "AEGIS Ashore". This is true, and nobody is denying this fact.

But now we get into the hazy wording (on purpose) of this article that makes it crap.

Now the article never mentions what the missiles intended to be put in place are, other then they are "land based". Well, guess what? That means they are one of 3 things.

SM-3
PATRIOT-THAAD
MLRS

Because guess what? Those are the only land based missiles we use.

Now out of all of those, MLRS is the only one that can attack land targets. But with a maximum range of only 300 km, these could only be used after Russia had actually been invaded. Neither a "preemptive strike", nor anything a sane person would consider the US doing.

So that leaves our other land based missiles, SM-3 and PATRIOT-THAAD. And none of those in any form can be used to strike land targets. They are all defensive systems, and can only be used against "inbound nukes" after they are fired, the exact opposire of preemptive.

How about doing some actual research, and not drinking the koolaid of some moron releasing a political piece that has his head up his arse and has absolutely no idea what he is talking about?

The only 2 "land based missiles" that could possibly have done a "preemptive strike" against Russian missile sites have been out of service for decades.

The BGM-109G was a ground based Tomahawk launcher. The last ones were removed from service 24 years ago in compliance witht he INF treaty.

The other was the Pershing II, yet another missile system that was removed from service in 1991 because of the INF treaty.

So what missile is going to be used for this preemptive strike? Some air defense systems that can not strike ground targets, or a system that was pulled from service when the Soviet Union was still in control of what is now Russia?

Research, I suggest trying it next time. Before just running with some internet article, take the time to find out if what it claims is even close to reality. In this case, the very fact that it does not say what missiles would be used (other then "ground based") should have been a red flag that the author did not know what they were talking about.

 

OK, now let's try some actual information and not fantasy, shall we?

First of all, President Reagan had nothing to do with the ABM Treaty. Why not? Because it was created in 1972, when he was Governor Reagan of California!

And the ABM Treaty was signed for some very good reasons. The missiles that that treaty outlawed (in the US the Nike Hercules) were themselves primarily nuclear missiles! Specifically, they carried 2-20kt nuclear warheads.

Next time, I suggest you try to do just a little bit of basic research. Because the moment you tried to connect President Reagan and the ABM Treaty, you showed you did not have a clue as to what you were talking about.

And if you want to learn a bit more about what the Nike series of ABM was, I can suggest 2 different locations you can visit.

First is SF-88 if you ever visit the San Francisco area. Located near the northern end of the Golden Gate Bridge, it is a largely intact Nike battery. Now run as a museum by the Park Service, it is a fascinating place to visit if you have an interest in the Cold War.

http://www.nps.gov/goga/nike-missile-site.htm

If you are on the East Coast, visit NY-56, at Fort Hancock near Sandy Hook, New Jersey. Another Nike site turned over to a museum.

http://nikemissile.org/sandyhook.shtml

And if you want to know where some of these were near where you live, try this:

http://ed-thelen.org/loc.html

This should be a damned good example of why we needed to get rid of these things. Here is something that chilled me when I learned about it:

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1847681,-118.4818808,17z/data=!3m1!1e3

Nike Site LA-96. Literally located around 3 miles from the house I grew up in (1966-1975). So when I was riding my bike in the nearby Balboa Park and playing in my back yard, I was literally a couple of miles from a half dozen or more nuclear missiles, a stone's throw from a major road.

Do you still think the ABM Treaty was a stupid idea?

 

I never said the ABM treaty was a stupid idea. You must have misread something. I was arguing that unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty was a bad idea.

 

But once again, it was not President Reagan that withdrew from it.

The ABM Treaty continued, even past the disolusion of the Soviet Union, until 2002. This was because to continue research into the Ground-Based Interceptor and other large ground based (non-nuclear) systems, it had to be torn up. And in it's place the US and Russia adopted SORT, which further reduced the number of warheads each side had.

And the USSR-Russia never really followed the treaty anyways. They simply scrapped their large fixed positions, and converted them all to mobile launchers which never went anywhere. There were more ABM systems circling Moscow in 1990 then there were in 1972 when the treaty was signed. But they were mobile, thereby ignored by the treaty.

The US on the other hand decommissioned all of the NIKE sites, and put nothing in their place. And to this day there are hundreds of ABM missiles around Moscow and other critical Russian locations. The US on the other hand has absolutely no ABM systems in place anywhere.

 

I did not say that we withdrew from the ABM treaty during the Reagan era. It was Bush that withdrew from the treaty in 2002. In 2007 we started putting ABM's on Russian borders in Czechoslovakia and Poland which destabilized nuclear détente and forced Russia to take counter measures.

 

No, actually we started to put Air Defense missiles on mobile launchers (which were not covered in the ABM treaty) into other NATO countries like Poland.

Mobile air defense missile systems (like PATRIOT and THAAD) which are primarily for anti-aircraft and also can shoot down inbound missiles by way of a conventional warhead are not covered by the ABM treaty. That is why systems like THAAD, PATRIOT, and SM-3 (when aboard ships) were never covered by ABM.

It was years after we withdrew from the ABM treaty that the first real fixed land based ABM system was developed by the US, the aforementioned AEGIS Ashore.

But as of 2015, not a single AEGIS Ashore system has been put in place, POLAND and other NATO countries are still using PATRIOT, once again, a system never covered by ABM. Otherwise you had better believe that the USSR-Russia would have been screaming about it way back in 1990 when we first adoped PATRIOT into an ABM role and used it as such during the Gulf War.

 

I remember Putin break into laughter during an interview when the interviewer suggested that missile defense was not directed at Soviet nukes.

 

*facepalm*

Missile defense is not aimed at anybody, it is by it's very name a defensive system. It can't be aimed at any nation, unless they launch an attack at who it is defending.

What you said makes as much sense as trying to say that police with bulletproof vests are aimed at law abiding citizens with guns. It is a defensive item, and is aimed at nobody.

Please do not make the mistake of even trying to imply it is an offensive system. Only offensive systems can be "aimed" at somebody. ICBMs are offensive, Missile Defense is defensive, and can only be used if the nation with them is attacked.

 

Quit speaking nonsense. If you can not understand what the term "directed at Russian nukes" means then go troll elsewhere.

 

They are aimed at any enemy missiles or aircraft (not just nukes) that are directed at them.

If Russia is not planning on attacking or nuking them, then there is nothing to worry about.

I know I certainly do not worry about Russian missile defenses. Of course, the US-NATO also has no intention of attacking Russia, so it is a pointless worry.

Only those that are frustrated because defenses could ruin an attack of theirs worry about defensive systems.

But tell me, should we be screaming about all of the Russian Missile Defense systems scattered throughout Russia? Because otherwise, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, ya know?

 

Try naming a single one mobile ABM system Russia or Soviet Union used in the 90-th. And try naming a single fixed ABM site, except those around Moscow prior to 2002.
Waiting for your "expert's opinion". Altough having you running away with your pants down is far more likely, taking into account our previous conversations.

 

We put ABM's on Russian borders. So what if they are multi-purpose and can be directed at other things. This is a direct provocation and destabilization of nuclear détente.

The Pentagon would be crying foul up to the high heavens if the Russians put ABM's on US borders.

What pot calling kettle black ? Last time Russia wandered anywhere near US territory by way of "missiles" we had the Cuban missile crisis.

Perhaps I am confusing you with someone else but normally you have a clue if I recall correctly. The above is surprisingly unsophisticated.

Of course Russia's plan is if they are attacked with nukes to nuke back. This was the whole point of the ABM treaty. That some buckaroo on either side would not get the stupid idea that nuclear war was winnable thinking "we can send ours and when they counter we can shoot them down".

Now only did we withdraw from the ABM treaty in 2002, in 2007 we started putting them on Russian borders.

We also knew that the Russians would take counter measures "Why ?" because Putin described those counter measures !!

It is then no surprise that Putin started implementing these counter measures, because we were the ones that forced him to do these things.

Thank goodness he did not go as far as putting nukes in space. (one of the possibilities on the table mentioned by Putin).

 

We put ABMs on the Soviet Border decades ago, and neither side cared very much. And the main thing about ABM is that they can not be targeted at ground targets.

And the Cuban Missile Crisis was about offensive missiles, not defensive ones. The Soviets sold Cuba lots of Defensive Missiles, and the US did not care.

This is not a good analysis, because you are throwing all missiles together into a box called "missiles", and completely ignoring the differences between Defensive missiles like these, and offensive ones.