sealordlawrenceFixed it for ya. I’m only half-joking too, care to tell me why MAD would not work against any other nation-state opponent than Russia/USSR? What makes Iran any different?
The irrational actor model.
Anyway whether Iran is nuclear capable or not, the ABM system still has a function. Afterall you dont need need nukes for ballistic missiles.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrence“At least” being the significant words there. How many back-country roads in Serbia can a convoy of heavy vehicles maintain 50 km/h on?
That is absolute BS, lots of rapid movement yes, but not 1000km a day + on backroads. Not to mention that a fast moving convoy of heavy vehicles would stick out like a sore thumb, especially moving 1000km a day.
sealordlawrenceVery interesting thread, but to get back to the original post by Easty, why? Does the ETPS need experience on Russian helicopters?:confused:
Inocuous: Training pilots from third world countries who will have to operate the Hind, as well as countries like Afghanistan.
Secret Squirrel: There are rumours that British forces have been using the Hip in Afghanistan, could just be BS though.
sealordlawrenceAs for the SSMs, you could choose Exocet Block3 instead of RBS-15. That’ll almost certainly allow you to keep 8 missiles (I assume they’ll be interchangable with the old models) while gaining a similar secondary land attack capability. Less warhead punch and slightly shorter range though.
Good point, and indeed the later Greek Super Vitas are getting the Blok 3, although I think I would take the Kongsberg NSM as a preference.
sealordlawrence:rolleyes: while not at sea those ships are not exactly sitting abandoned at peer. Drills at peer are just about as effective as drills at sea.
No they are not and only extreme ignorance could produce such a comment, I would advise that you retract it to save yourself further embaressment.
sealordlawrenceActually, I seem to recall the US and Russia agreed to point their missiles at coordinates in international waters by default, as a confidence building measure. Sure, with modern re-targeting links it would likely have taken all of 10 seconds to reassign genuine targets to those warheads, but my above comment still stands unless you can provide a source which contradicts it.
Haha, you just completely invalidated your own comment!:D:D:D
Your point is nonsense and never stood, Russian nukes are no threat to you as long as MAD exists.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceAs it happens, this episode has resulted in nuclear warheads being targeted at a point no more than 300 miles from my location for the first time in almost 20 years. Sorry, that is most emphatically NOT a non-issue to me!
Your safe unless somebody luanches them. And dont think for a minute that Russia stopped pointing its missiles west after 1992.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceNo, but this isn’t an exact science, it is about perceptions shaped by experience. And looking at history, as SOC says, from the Russian perspective most of Russia’s action are logically consistent. It may be hard to fathom (and I re-iterate that I find it hard to accept as well) but they quite simply don’t trust the West. You can tell them all you want that you will not be expanding the ABM system to the point where it does become a threat to the credibility of their deterrence, they will apparently quite simply not believe you unless you sign a treaty with them that legally binds you to your assurances. The problem is that there actually doesn’t seem to be anything dishonest about it, they are genuinly that suspicious of the US!
So the choice was to humour the Russians and maybe build mutual trust for the future (and this is a decade-long process!) or alienate them and have tac nukes pointed at NATO members. The latter approach was what they chose and that IMHO is a grave mistake, for it has destroyed any progress in mutual trust we may have made sofar (quite apart from the nukes!). That unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty was completely legal doesn’t make it a good idea – there’s nothing illegal about not greeting my neighbour when I meet him, but I probably should not expect him to hold a high opinion of me for it.
In tha case they are grossly ignorant, the ABM system is no threat to them and worrying about theeir pathetic sensibilities is a non issue. All your fairey language is a waste, the Russians are not suspicious they are just crying about the fact that their former empire no longer feels subservient to them. As pointed out by others in this thread, why not complain about the Sea based ABM systems? Or the stuff in the pacific?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceAnd that is the point I’ve been trying to make all along. No, I don’t agree with the determined Russian opposition to a (likely useless, but equally harmless to them) missile site. However, I can most definitely appreciate where they are coming from, and there is precisely zero excuse for the US to have blatantly ignored that Russian point of view in their approach to setting up the bases. All this could have been handled in a much more civilized way and with infinitely less drama if they had kept in touch and taken the Russians seriously. Negotiating a follow-on agreement to the ABM-treaty that would have accomodated the sites could have gone a long way in preempting many of the concerns they are voicing now and which – even if they are likely never going to happen – are theoretically valid if you accept that they quite simply don’t trust the West.
It doesn’t matter in the slightest if you agree with their views (shudder all you want Jonesy, I’ll actually join you!), but you’d better take them into account if you don’t want to have yourself a huge row as we have seen. Look at what we’ve ended up with now, tactical nukes pointed at Eastern Europe where there were none before. By what crazy measure does that constitute an increase in security, especially considering how an Iranian ICBM is a rather elusive notion and likely to remain so? And I wouldn’t be so confident in Patriot being able to intercept them with any consistency – this is not your father’s Scud!
Of course Russia’s point of view has been ignored, it is either fundementally flawed or dishonest. If a man comes to you and tells you that 2 and 2 are 5 do you consider his point?:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceWell Sealord, being overoptimistic for the Patriot side, by assigning a PK of 50% against a Iskander missile, you will need 4 Patriot missiles to reach a PK = 0.94 to deal with just one Iskander (And that inflating the Patriot PK). So, the conclusion is the same: 12 Iskander TEL (24 missiles) are more than enough to render the site useless. It may be even labeled as overkill.
Who cares, as already established the ABM system is not even orientated against Russia, so all Russia is doing is wasting money.:D:p:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceI do like the idea, though obviously it has it’s limitations.
In order to (hopefully) avoid the likes of Star49 and Echonine chiming in, I’ll ask this here… What do think the (potential) rebuilding of the Georgian Navy should look like? Should they go for small missile boats, a la Sealord’s Super Vita Mk2? Should they focus instead on shore-based defences (e.g. truck-mobile anti-ship missiles), a bit more like the Cypriot Navy seem to?
Frankly I think the likes of this are beyond Georgia right now. Mobile land based AShM’s would be a good bet along with KAAN 33 type missile boats (120 tons full load) from Turkey. Midget submarines might be useful but I cant think of anybody who makes decent ones right now.
sealordlawrenceNo, I don’t think so. Technically a dozen Iskander are even “overkill” to such a site; and in the end, NATO will have to accept, like it or not, that if they host the ABM site, they will have to live with Iskander as a neighbour. That’s the plain reality. 😎 Later, just let them blabla.
Yeah but it wont stop the Russians whining like children.:rolleyes: A few patriots (just like the ones that are being delivered actually:rolleyes:)should settle that nonsense anyway.
sealordlawrenceOh Sealord, in this we also agree: the Russian whining on the Pole ABM site ceased with the announcement of the deployment of Iskander in Kaliningrad. That’s more than enough. Unfortunately, at the same moment, the Pole-Latvian-NATO whining by the Iskanders started. Who understand them?
No it has not, the Russians will continue whining forever about this, get a grip.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceSo we agree here: as the selling of Russian weapons to South America (remember, a continent of free-sovereign countries) is legal, the US whining on the issue should stop. End of off-topic.
Only as much as Russian whining about ABM shields should stop.:rolleyes:
sealordlawrenceSo, be coherent and told cronies like Otto Reich to stop to scream. Russian weapons will continue to flow to Venezuela (remember, a free-sovereign country), like it or not.
How is this difficult to grasp, as long as Russia meets its various treaty and UN obligations nobosy cares.:rolleyes:
Sign In
