I wish we could have continued with much better relations with Russia, instead of seeing polarization escalating and going from the possibility of humanity becoming extinct within 1 hour into the possibility of becoming extinct within 20 minutes. At some point some mad person is likely going to push the button, all just because we are programmed to compete and win by all means with help of misguided philosophies.
Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile
21–30 of 101 posts
Re: Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile
#22How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba? Cuba is closer to the US border than the site in Poland to the Russian border, on the other hand Washington is further away from Cuba than Moscow from the site in Poland. Both capitals would be in range of the interceptors. I do not really know enough to judge whether Putin's statement that one could easily replace interceptors with offensive weap…
If it were like the defensive site in Poland, there is no reason to become alarmed. Putting aside the declared capabilities of the interceptors (let us assume they are all-powerful and always achieve 100% effectiveness against any target), you have a simple N+1 problem. For N interceptors, simply launch N+1 ballistic missiles. Offensive ballistic missiles are relatively inexpensive and Russia has a large alert force.
These ABM sites are not strategically destabilizing for this simple fact. They do not invite a first strike in the same way a fully operational SDI might have: there simply aren't enough interceptor missiles.
Re: Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile
#23Is there seriously some new cold war going on? I read in other media how some new American weapons can fight certain Russian tanks etc, and now I read about Putin bragging about his new weapons. My prediction for the post-Sovjet area was that the US and Russia would just leave each other in peace.
I've always considered the idea that the Cold War was "over" to be nothing but propaganda designed to prevent people from wondering why their nation is spending $Trillion on their military. Of course the Cold War is still happening: America has been exporting war wholesale for decades. Just because Russia hasn't been doing it at the same scale as well, doesn't mean squat. The US and Russia have had plenty of opportun…
[deleted]
Re: Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile
#24How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba? Cuba is closer to the US border than the site in Poland to the Russian border, on the other hand Washington is further away from Cuba than Moscow from the site in Poland. Both capitals would be in range of the interceptors. I do not really know enough to judge whether Putin's statement that one could easily replace interceptors with offensive weap…
By the same token, if the Ukraine had been more paranoid about Russian intentions, they might not have been invaded by Russia yet again. It’s not just the US, Poland has no interest in becoming a Russian satellite again. We can try to equivocate, but after WWII Russia took over half of Europe, and the US didn’t. Would Russia have rebuilt Japan and let it go? The history of (East) Germany suggests an answer.
I will stay away from Ukraine as an example because I am unable to judge if and to what extend the West tried to influence the situation there and if Russia's actions where at least partially reactions.
Re: Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile
#25How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba? Cuba is closer to the US border than the site in Poland to the Russian border, on the other hand Washington is further away from Cuba than Moscow from the site in Poland. Both capitals would be in range of the interceptors. I do not really know enough to judge whether Putin's statement that one could easily replace interceptors with offensive weap…
> "How would the US react if Russia build a missile defense site in Cuba?" I think that was the trigger for the Cuba crises?
The Cuban Missile Crisis was directly precipitated by the US placing nuclear missiles in Italy and Turkey and aiming them at Moscow.
Re: Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the same token, if the Ukraine had been more paranoid about Russian intentions, they might not have been invaded by Russia yet again. It’s not just the US, Poland has no interest in becoming a Russian satellite again. We can try to equivocate, but after WWII Russia took over half of Europe, and the US didn’t. Would Russia have rebuilt Japan and let it go? The history of (East) Germany suggests an answer.
I will stay away from Ukraine as an example because I am unable to judge if and to what extend the West tried to influence the situation there and if Russia's actions where at least partially reactions.
If only Russia had stayed away, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. I’ll say this for the US, at least when they invade they admit it; thy royally fuck it up, but they admit it.
Re: Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russias ruling elite need external threats to keep their reign secure, otherwise russians would start looking inwards rather than outwards.
The same is true of Americas' ruling elite, yo. Stop blaming Russia - start blaming Lockheed Martin ($29.4 billion), Boeing ($14.6 billion), Raytheon ($12.3 billion), General Dynamics ($11.8 billion), Northrup Grumman ($9.5 billion), and so on .. ($number in brackets represents value of war-related contracts awarded and currently under obligation...) These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
>These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
Not really. China works just as well.
Fun fact: the US Navy response to Russia's unilateral abrogation of the INF treaty (IMHO one of the greatest achievements in modern diplomacy & arms control) is to build INF-range missiles - to counter the Chinese.
There's a reason there's an SS-20 and Pershing II next to each other at the NASM. INF was a really big deal. It should be worrying to more people that it is being abandoned with such haste.
Re: Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Russias ruling elite need external threats to keep their reign secure, otherwise russians would start looking inwards rather than outwards.
The same is true of Americas' ruling elite, yo. Stop blaming Russia - start blaming Lockheed Martin ($29.4 billion), Boeing ($14.6 billion), Raytheon ($12.3 billion), General Dynamics ($11.8 billion), Northrup Grumman ($9.5 billion), and so on .. ($number in brackets represents value of war-related contracts awarded and currently under obligation...) These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
The military-industrial complex will certainly leverage any international conflict it can in order to expand its existence - and I wouldn’t put it past nefarious activities - but some underlying geopolitical conditions must exist to exasperate conflict and in the case of Russia that its natural aggressive and expansionary nature towards its neighbors. There countries naturally turn to defensive collectives such as NATO to protect their sovereignty from Russian aggression.
Re: Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I will stay away from Ukraine as an example because I am unable to judge if and to what extend the West tried to influence the situation there and if Russia's actions where at least partially reactions.
If only Russia had stayed away, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. I’ll say this for the US, at least when they invade they admit it; thy royally fuck it up, but they admit it.
Let me just add this for the records because you added to your initial comment while I replied, I am from East Germany and am surly happy that the Soviet Union fell apart. But I am also quite skeptical and a black and white picture of the good NATO and bad Russia seems rather unlikely. During the German reunification talks it was supposedly at least suggested that the NATO would not expand eastwards and the US has a long history of messing with unwelcome governments.
I really do not want to justify Russian actions in the Ukraine in any way, but I do not feel confident to say that it was pure aggression from Russia. Also whether one should deny a NATO memberships to countries that might have legitimate interests in just because the Soviet Union was against it at the end of the Cold War and especially if it was never even part of any formal agreement is by no means a clear cut issue that I want to argue for or against here.
I really just want to avoid judgments here because I certainly do not understand all the forces and motivations at work.
Re: Putin's Hypersonic Weapon Appears to Be a Modified Iskander Ballistic Missile
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The same is true of Americas' ruling elite, yo. Stop blaming Russia - start blaming Lockheed Martin ($29.4 billion), Boeing ($14.6 billion), Raytheon ($12.3 billion), General Dynamics ($11.8 billion), Northrup Grumman ($9.5 billion), and so on .. ($number in brackets represents value of war-related contracts awarded and currently under obligation...) These companies need the Russian threat to justify their existence.
The military-industrial complex will certainly leverage any international conflict it can in order to expand its existence - and I wouldn’t put it past nefarious activities - but some underlying geopolitical conditions must exist to exasperate conflict and in the case of Russia that its natural aggressive and expansionary nature towards its neighbors. There countries naturally turn to defensive collectives such as NA…
Honestly, I find the American propensity to blame Russia for its actions in Crimea to be of the most blatant hypocrisy one can imagine. Russia has better arguments for defending its naval bases in Crimea from Ukraine hostility, than America has for .. Iraq .. Afghanistan .. Libya .. and so on.
Do Americans just not see their own hypocrisy on this issue? Russia didn't invade and destroy entire nation(s) (PLURAL) in order to exercise global military power - it invaded Crimea to secure its own resources in the region. Ukraine did not fall, it has not been utterly destroyed, its infrastructure not-related to offensive actions against the Russian naval bases in Crimea is still intact.
But we cannot say that about America's actions in the forementioned countries, nor can we say that Russian interference in the American 'election' is anywhere near the same order of magnitude as American interference in .. 20+ different democracies around the world. I shan't make a list - this is an exercise for the average American reader to demonstrate for themselves that there is no hypocrisy here.
And .. NATO. The military organization currently doing its best to ensure Russia is encircled by heavy military assets. Tell me again: when was the last time Russia established full operational, offensive bases within 30 km's of the borders of the USA with any of its clients and their military?
Please, do not play this game. It makes no sense and it just makes you sound utterly ill-informed. Russia is in no way on par with the USA when it comes to military aggression. Not even close.