Putin gives stark missile warning

#3
#3
I have a professor who is an expert in missile defense systems and just got back from Russia where he was talking with them about missile defense capabilities. He is very concerned about this situation. He has been telling us (nonstop) for the past few months that this could grow into a serious regression in US-Russia relations.
 
#4
#4
TennTradition said:
I have a professor who is an expert in missile defense systems and just got back from Russia where he was talking with them about missile defense capabilities. He is very concerned about this situation. He has been telling us (nonstop) for the past few months that this could grow into a serious regression in US-Russia relations.
Click to expand...

I never knew we were the best of friends anyways. Looks like Russia is going to have to grow out of communism after all.
 
#5
#5
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I never knew we were the best of friends anyways. Looks like Russia is going to have to grow out of communism after all.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the statement was made (by him) to imply that we were good friends and this could hurt that. The bottom line is that we were in a situation where our nuclear weapons were not really a live threat to each other. Russia had signed the intermediate ballistic missile ban treaty. Now, Russia is feeling lied to - and they are justified (to some extent) in the opinion of this professor. He is convinced that the US is openly lying not only to Russia, but also to our allies in Britain, Germany, Poland, and the Czech Republic. He met with the Germans last week and says they are severely ticked off because they are beginning to believe they've been lied to for a while about the missile defense capabilities. And, Russia is seriously thinking about withdrawing from the intermediate ballistic missile ban treaty now because they are pretty confident we have lied to them about the missile defense capabilities.

This is not a matter that I am all that technically sound in. That is why I am taking this nuclear forces and missile defense strategies class, to try to get a better technical understanding of defense systems. So, unfortunately, I have to rely on the opinion of this professor and can't use any of my own knowledge to assess the situation. However, in his opinion, the missile defense systems are fully capable of detecting and aiming for Russian ICBMs...although we have told them and our allies differently. Europe has no interest in installing a missile defense shield that can protect against Russia. They rely too much on their vast resources to risk damaging relations. And, our relations with our European allies is tenuous as it is - they do not appreciate more lies.
 
#6
#6
Wait a minute. So they are getting pissed because we are building a defense system to protect against ICBM's?
 
#7
#7
I'm cool with the full regression in relations, as long as the system works.
 
#8
#8
Vol1312 said:
Wait a minute. So they are getting pissed because we are building a defense system to protect against ICBM's?
Click to expand...

They are getting peeved because we are lying about the capabilities of a system we are installing that isn't intended to protect against them. We are (supposedly) installing this system to protect against Iranian ICBMs. The Russians don't have a problem with that. The Europeans want that. However, neither the Russians or the Europeans want the system to be capable of intercepting Russian ICBMs. It upsets the existing equilibrium that everyone is happy with. It is tantamount to a nuclear escalation.

The Europeans rely on the Russians as a key economic partner. They do not want to make them angry - especially this angry. It is not in their interest to install a missile defense system that would intercept Russian missiles. So, when we wanted to put in this system to protect everyone from Iran - they wanted (Europe and Russia) assurances that it couldn't take out Russian missiles. We lied to them and have continued to lie to them about the capabilities of the system. That's why they are peeved.
 
#9
#9
BigPapaVol said:
I'm cool with the full regression in relations, as long as the system works.
Click to expand...

That's the crazy part - it may not even work. There is nothing more dangerous than having a missile defense system that people think could work when it actually doesn't. It is not a proper deterrent.

Their is currently another side story going on about all of this. It is beginning to look like Lincoln Laboratories and the DoD blatantly falsified records and lied to congress about the effectiveness of the patriot missile defense system. It will be interesting to see what comes of this whole issue - but if it is true, then that is VERY bad.
 
#10
#10
Am I wrong to think that the fear of the Russians is that if we have the ability to intercept their missiles we will use this capability to thwart any attempts by the Russians to defend themselves from anyone (not just us) by using long range missiles? Is this the underlying issue, aside from them being lied to?
 
#12
#12
emainvol said:
Am I wrong to think that the fear of the Russians is that if we have the ability to intercept their missiles we will use this capability to thwart any attempts by the Russians to defend themselves from anyone (not just us) by using long range missiles? Is this the underlying issue, aside from them being lied to?
Click to expand...

Umm...I think that it is just more that it upsets their defensive posture and the general defensive equilibrium that exists right now. We couldn't defend attacks by Russia on ...say... North Korea or China from the European defense shields (if my understanding is correct on the physics).

But, in general, I'm sure the Russians don't like the idea of our creeping in on them. The especially don't like us patting them on the back and smiling at them while doing it.
 
#13
#13
emainvol said:
I assure you, the last thing we need is Russia and most of Europe ticked off at us.
Click to expand...
when has that not been the case?

they're ticked, why do we care? this missile defense system isn't the reason they're ticked. it's because we have the best economy and best military in the world and those are the only two REAL diplomatic tools that exist. All else is empty blather.
 
#14
#14
I thought that Moscow had a missle defense shield going way back. It's hard for me to imagine that the Russians have not spread that technology throught other key areas within both their own natural borders and within those of the highest bidders.
 
#15
#15
It's politically correct to be at odds with the current U.S. administration. One of the most unpopular in history.
 
#16
#16
BigPapaVol said:
when has that not been the case?

they're ticked, why do we care? this missile defense system isn't the reason they're ticked. it's because we have the best economy and best military in the world and those are the only two REAL diplomatic tools that exist. All else is empty blather.
Click to expand...


that's debatable.
 
#17
#17
VolunteerHillbilly said:
I thought that Moscow had a missle defense shield going way back. It's hard for me to imagine that the Russians have not spread that technology throught other key areas within both their own natural borders and within those of the highest bidders.
Click to expand...

They have missile defense systems. I doubt they have shared them with many people because if they are as bad as ours - I doubt many people would want to pay for them. But, yes, they have an internal missile defense system. I'm not sure if theirs is exoatmospheric (like ours) or endoatmospheric.
 
#19
#19
TennTradition said:
They have missile defense systems. I doubt they have shared them with many people because if they are as bad as ours - I doubt many people would want to pay for them. But, yes, they have an internal missile defense system. I'm not sure if theirs is exoatmospheric (like ours) or endoatmospheric.
Click to expand...
Ours probably aren't as bad as you imagine and the technology platforms in Russia tend to be about 2 wars behind.
 
#23
#23
BigPapaVol said:
and you have that info based upon.......your TS clearance?
Click to expand...

No - obviously if I had information based on clearances I have or have had in the past, I wouldn't be passing it along. This information is completely independent of any privileged knowledge. But, at some level physics are physics. (As I mentioned earlier...this is not my technical area...but I have a decent feel for it...and countermeasures such as decoys have a tremendous effect on missile defense systems). I don't know how good our system is because I don't have a DoD clearance, but I have an idea of what the theoretical limits are and how easily decoys can fool our systems. Furthermore, the technology is based on technology very similar to patriot missile systems - which have a horrible track record.

However...I see your point. If I don't know for sure, then I probably shouldn't make categorical statements. So - with your point taken...I'll say this...I have a good feeling that our missile defense systems would not be all that effective.

On a similar note though....classified information has a way of hiding otherwise scientifically obvious facts from individuals who cannot research them because of compartmentalization of information. It often happens that people who work around systems know less because they aren't allowed than those who have no clearances but have a very good understanding of the physics (again..that isn't me...I only have a decent understanding of it). It's one of the odd side effects of compartmentalization of classified information.
 
#24
#24
TennTradition said:
No - obviously if I had information based on clearances I have or have had in the past, I wouldn't be passing it along. This information is completely independent of any privileged knowledge. But, at some level physics are physics. (As I mentioned earlier...this is not my technical area...but I have a decent feel for it...and countermeasures such as decoys have a tremendous effect on missile defense systems). I don't know how good our system is because I don't have a DoD clearance, but I have an idea of what the theoretical limits are and how easily decoys can fool our systems. Furthermore, the technology is based on technology very similar to patriot missile systems - which have a horrible track record.

However...I see your point. If I don't know for sure, then I probably shouldn't make categorical statements. So - with your point taken...I'll say this...I have a good feeling that our missile defense systems would not be all that effective.

On a similar note though....classified information has a way of hiding otherwise scientifically obvious facts from individuals who cannot research them because of compartmentalization of information. It often happens that people who work around systems know less because they aren't allowed than those who have no clearances but have a very good understanding of the physics (again..that isn't me...I only have a decent understanding of it). It's one of the odd side effects of compartmentalization of classified information.
Click to expand...
the limits of physics implies automation with no human intervention, which will never be the case for the SDI system. your analysis of compartmentalization is gobbledygook. the real danger to the process is the government procurement process, not the technology. tracking missiles over thousands of miles tends to eliminate the reality of decoys hurting the efficacy of the system.

The Patriot system was procured in the mid 80s. We're light years from there today.
 
#25
#25
BigPapaVol said:
the limits of physics implies automation with no human intervention, which will never be the case for the SDI system. your analysis of compartmentalization is gobbledygook. the real danger to the process is the government procurement process, not the technology. tracking missiles over thousands of miles tends to eliminate the reality of decoys hurting the efficacy of the system.

The Patriot system was procured in the mid 80s. We're light years from there today.
Click to expand...

I don't think that my argument about compartmentalization of information is that far off track. From personal experience I can say that there are things that some people know a lot more about that I have worked more closely with because of my inability to read certain material at the library or on-line. While I may know definitively a lot more about some specific facts, I know that others are more well-versed (with some uncertainty) about how these compartments fit in with others. It is a fact of classification, IMO.

Perhaps you can explain to me where I am wrong, but in exoatmospheric interception, decoys can behave very very much like warheads. The European defense shield will have a limited amount of time to launch the interceptor...on the order of minutes. Radar will provide very little help in deciphering decoy from warhead. So, that leaves us with IR sensors when within range. With human intervention, I would say you're right - we may be able to do better....but is better enough to be considered good? When within range for meter resolution, the kill vehicle has very little time to respond - likely only on the orders of tens of meters. As such, I don't see how a warhead in a field of decoys can be picked off - unless we are using nuclear devices to kill the nuclear devices, which while I know has been looked at, is not in practice as far as I know.

It sounds like you know a quite a bit about this, so I would welcome a discussion. I have no agenda here - so I'm wide open to learning what our capabilities are....
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top