JonesyI cannot accept these arguments because they are off topic. All you mentioned here is correct, but these are internal matters which are irrelevant to what we are talking about. Yes, in Iran a woman might still get arrested by Pasdar police if her socks roll down but that has completely zero influence on how safe Iranian missiles are from Ahmadinejad. Mentioning that is what I call grasping at straws trying to justify your position.
Flex it was YOUR contention that there was no difference in the repercussions that would befall an Iranian President who ordered his missiles launched as a US President. The net result being that both states would have equal stability and that such stability in and of itself would be sufficient to prevent an Iranian missile launch. Owing to this parity the US stationing of GBI’s in Poland was unnecessary. Its still perfectly on topic if you have the wit to follow through your own arguments.
The paragraph you wrote above gives perfect lie to your earlier contention. You know which populace is more controlled and that depending on the GBI’s in Poland is going to be a whole lot more reliable than relying on the democratic power of the Iranian electorate.
Ridiculous. You got no right to mix in into Iraqi matters just because your parliament decided that. Decisions of your parliament are valid in UK and that is where it ends. In Iraq they mean a big fat ZERO.
Sovereign states reserve the right to take whatever actions they deem necessary and can practically achieve. If it is in the UK national interest the rest of the world can take a flying leap…as we stated when world opinion took a dim view of us sending the fleet down to the South Atlantic in 82.
They would not. The only legitimate mandate is from UN. Point. Like it or not, I don’t care.
Of course the would…why wouldnt they?. Mandate from the UN is a bonus, but, the lack of it is not going to stop any nation from undertaking action that it believes is necessary.
It is irrelevant whether you think UN is objective or not. They are not perfect but it is an organization with higher mandate than your parliament. Get used to that.
No organisation has a higher mandate for UK actions and policy than the UK parliament. The same is true for every nation on the planet. That is plainly obvious!.
Your arguments are not logical. Having ICBMs makes a country stronger, not weaker. Having a stronger opponent does not encourage anyone to invade – in reality, it scares off.
Unless there is a concern that those missiles may be used by the country that fields them. ICBM’s can be a double edged sword as N.Korea has found out. This is especially as there is no obvious direct threat to Iran that would demand an ICBM to reach. The only conceivable reason to develop a reach of ICBM proportion, for Iran, is to present a threat to the CONUS, for deterrence or for political one-upmanship or whatever. That is self-evident. In that context, IF the US has the means to degrade that threat to its territory, is it not correct and prudent to deploy those means?.
They never alleged an intent to attack. Unless you want to take a powerless clown like Ahmadinejad seriously. If you do, then you can start taking Zhirinovsky seriously, as well and start getting ready for WWIII. Your own decision.
Where Zhirinovsky to achieve the position that Ahmedinejad has yes I probably would find a new focus on the actions he was undertaking. If you think, objectively, about what you are saying Flex is that the US should feel confident enough in the political limp-wristedness of Ahmedinejad to base the potential safety of millions of its citizens on his impotence. The fact is that a) the views on Ahmedinejad may be plain wrong and b) those ICBM’s will still be there when the next guy comes along, and the next, and the next. IF at some point the Iranians get governance a bit closer to what you say the populace yearn for the Polish missiles can always be pulled out as well lets not forget.
That is internal problem of Iranians, not yours. Ahmadinejad’s main job is internal policy, maybe Khamenei likes it that way. You have zero word over who is president of Iran, get used to that.
I dont think I ever suggested that I had any sway over the incumbent Iranian political heirarchy?. I’m not disputing that its an Iranian problem either. What I am asking is that you explain the disparity in what Ahmedinejad says and what, by your contention, he has the latitude to say. Simply at the moment the two dont seem to tally and, frankly, it calls into doubt your read of the man, his position and the political landscape over there?.
I have already clearly proven my point, no need to grasp on straws. Regarding the difficulties to obtain the exact launch position, please refer to the term GPS.
Come off it GPS!. You know so little of what you are talking about its actually pitiful. You think an SSBN has the luxury of permanent GPS access when submerged?. What do you think the first targets wiped out by Russian ASAT will be in a conflict?. What does this tell you of assured operational reliance on GPS from USN SSBN’s.
Again stop with the grasping at straws. SLBM’s cannot, with 100% confidence, do all jobs that land-base can do. It is therefore plain ignorance of the operational reality to state that SLBM’s are the reason that land-base ICBM ranges haven’t increased in any real sense in the last couple of decades.
JonesyI have to smile here a little. Look, I do not deny that in Iran people only are able to elect a president which is slightly more than a puppet in the hands of the supreme leader and his council. Yup, not exactly a free society, I agree.
But look at our governemtns or USA. People in democratic countries only are able to elect a president or premier minister who is hardly more than a puppet in the hands of financial and lobbyist groups. If you need several dozens of million dollars just to get a slightest chance to become a president, then it’s not exactly a free society, either. Don’t be naieve.
I’m naieve and you can write that?. Flex do you not see the difference in the two conditions?. The democratic governments may be influenced by business interests. Those interests though are, by and large, beneficial to the countries they operate and, often, what is good for the business community is good for employment, taxation and national revenues. It may be insidious and morally questionable but there are at least tangible benefits. Now compare that to the ‘power behind the throne’ scenario as displayed in Tehran. To suggest that the US govt could suppress its population as easily as Irans could, as is the whole point here, would be an absurdity.
It’s you who is naieve here. Yes, the english Parliament singned off on the action. So what? Does that justify you to enter Iraq?
Yes of course it does and did.
Tomorrow, Brazilian parliament might sign off on the invasion of Wales. What will you say? ‘Ah, you Brazzies got it official, so that is really something else, welcome!’
No but the Brazillians would have a legitimate mandate for their action. It matters not one bit what the Swedish or Egyptians, for example, might think of the Brazillian action.
Local approval without agreement of international community is meaningless..
Only IF the opinion of the international community can be reasonably accepted as objective and impartial. Which it is very unlikely ever to be. In the Iraq shambles many nations stated that they were not actually concerned about whether Hussein was deposed or not they just did not want to see American hegemony on such open display. How credible is that as an opinion?.
Iran must not necessarily perceive threat to build missiles. They might have a simpler reason – deterrence.
So if they build missiles they deter what?. US ICBM’s aren’t targetted at Iran. A US invasion?. You dont stop an invasion fleet with ICBM’s – in fact threatening someone with ICBM’s is only going to encourage them to come and take them off you.
Exactly 🙂 Just like the alleged Iranian intentions to attack the US. 😉
Whose alleged an intent to attack?. I am saying that they are developing the capability to attack and have what can at least be described as an antipathy towards the US. I cant say they are intent on attacking any more than you can say they aren’t. The fact that the capability is likely to soon exist makes the preparation for a defence against that capability justified.
Enough?
Of course it isnt. Why is Ahmedinejad still kicking if he openly contradicted what the top chappy said?.
It’s you who is talking nonsense, Jonesy. I have clearly proven that current sub-based ICBMs in the hands of Americans, Russians, British or French already have unlimited range and that further increasing sheer range is pointless because it brings no new quality to the design, just increases cost and limits perfromance.. Only an idiot would want to pay for nonsense like that if he already has all means necessary to hit any target..
SLBM’s are not as accurate as land-based missiles owing to the fact that the launch position isn’t as clearly defineable. Up until recently that meant SLBMs had no first-strike capability. They cannot and were not, I believe actually are not, interchangeable for land-based missiles on all taskings. If you had the first clue of what you are mouthing off about you would know that.
The SLBM doesnt therefore provide the extra range to hit targets ‘anywhere’ eliminating any necessity for range beyond that developed by the two superpowers to clobber each other. The simple fact is they achieved the range to hit the target sets they needed to and STOPPED just as I said they did and you, sir, are grasping at straws trying to justify your position.
JonesyI think you just started to completely contradict your own previous arguments. In your previous response you were speaking about Bush or Obama being carried to Hague by its own people after having throwed nukes on civilians and that should be, in your eyes, a clear prevention for such action. Now, using your own rhetoric – who cares about what happens to the president afterwards?
Yes because Iran is a free and open society in exactly the same way as the US is. I make no claim that Iran is North Korea or Taleban Afghanistan, but, there are small issues like the Revolutionary Guard and the disparately shifting wills of aged clerics.
Face it, the world is endangered by the stockpile of American weapons exactly the same way as it is endangered by (a much smaller) stockpile of (much less sophisticated) Iranian weapons. Keep denying that, I don’t care..
Utterly irrelevent. Let the rest of the world build their own GBI’s and ring the US with them if they feel the US missile arsenal is a threat. It makes it no less correct for the US to do so where they perceive a threat.
Yes, this is exactly what I was talking about previously. You are again playing the game of eternal victim.
A defensive system to prevent one becoming a victim hardly makes one a victim.
But, IMHO, United States are not endangered… they are the danger, too… one would think that the American democratic system with its various power distribution mechanisms, as well as international law and generally international community provide enough deterrence against unjustified military actions. But Iraq has show that a bunch of dedicated high rank zealots in white house is surprisingly able to start a military campaign serving their own private purposes, even against the will of the international community.
The Iraq action wasn’t justified to you. In my country Parliament signed off on the action. That means it was fully legally justified, for UK forces, irrespective of your beliefs. So far from your conspiracy theorist nonsense in reality. Lets face it the will of the international community was hardly unbiased here either…how much did France and Russia lose out betting on Hussein?. Dont be so naieve.
So, other than the country next door that they have threatened, where is Irans threat now they have defacto sway in southern Iraq?. Why invest in missiles at all if Israel is such a good friend as you make out?.
If the Iraqi campaign went as planned and a decisive victory was achieved, I am pretty sure that American public would get more radical and more bloodthirsty with time – moving a step closer to *justified* use of nuclear weapons on potential enemy one day.
Irrelevent and unproveable.
To sum it up – For external matters Ahmadinejad is under circumstances a person with 14th largest power in Iran and has absolutely no control over what is happening in the armed forces. His command over Iranian military is ZERO. That means, the danger he constitutes to Israel or US or anyone else is ZERO, too. But hey, don’t let the facts go in the way of your rant.
Well it begs the question of what the other 14 think they are playing at letting this toothless PR guy, as you try and paint Ahmedinejad to be, set their foreign policy stance with every press conference. Either that or you are talking utter twaddle.
Now you hit the point. Unlimited range + 11000 km = unlimited range. Where’s the difference?
…but didnt you say Flex that countries and companies continually extend the ranges of their weapons just because they can?. 11000km isnt sufficient to even hit South America or Australia from Moscow surely if the Russians could extend the ranges of their missiles further they would….thats what you say they do. Alternately again you are talking twaddle.
Note for research. Look up SLBM and accuracy. Then understand the difference between the taskings originally given to land-based and sea-based missiles.
JonesyOf course, Iranian President, upon throwing few missiles on Chicago, would of course be carried on hands of his grateful population of young Iranians with completely erased future.. – only in your dreams..
Who cares what happens to him afterwards?. Bit late for Chicago by then isnt it?. That is the whole point here Flex once an ICBM is fired there is very little anyone can do about them to stop them hitting point of aim. The US has spent the money developing BMD and, doubtless, needs to spend more to get it fielded and mature. Why should it not place it to counter a threat that it has good grounds to perceive as genuine?.
LOL. you don’t seriously intend to start a debate about how US are practically unarmed compared to other countries, do you? 😎
No because it would be irrelevent. Nice attempt at misdirection though. The point is that, using your analogy, the 8yr old is still a threat to the 220lb man, if he has the right weapon. To follow the analogy the 220lb man buys a bullet proof vest just in case, in a few years, the 8 year old grows into a teenager that likes to play with guns.
The difference with Iran is that a guy like that managed to get higher than usual jerks do – he is directly in the spotlights so it looks like if he actually could do anything about what he talks about.
So you say. There is very little evidence to support this though. Its said that Ahmedinejad is widely unpopular and is only propped up by the hardline conservative clerics. He doesnt seem to lack support for his confrontational policies with his populace from my reading of current events though.
:confused:Learn about ICBMs first before wasting anyone’s time. They are quoted to have range over 11,000 km, combined with nuclear submarines some are able to reach ANY point of Earth’s surface, we can talk about unlimited range here.
No Flex that is the nuclear submarine that has the unlimited range and not the missile!. You stated that countries and companies continually extend the range of their missiles. No they dont – plainly. ICBM’s ranges stopped being invested in when they were able to reach their target sets. Not because some could be dropped in subs to carry them the extra few hundred miles!. I think you need to do some reading if that is what you believe. Once the missile designers achieved the range they required they shifted thrust budgets to increase valuable throw weight and not useless range.
Your question is, again, a wrong one. Iranians do not NEED missiles with 3000km range, they WANT them. And why? Because they can.. What’s so hard to grasp here?
Their most mortal enemy, the one that will seriously obliterate them given the provocation, is sat next door. I ask again what do they WANT 3000km ranged weapons for?. The answer is that they dont want 3000km weapons – they want full up ICBM’s – and the 3000km weapon is a waypoint on the development path. Thus, unfortunately for your argument, fully justifying the Polish GBI site!.
JonesyWrong. For Iran it’s not MAD, it is simply called AD. And that is where the whole story ends.
Of course it doesnt because the US president cannot use WMD on innocent civillians. He’d be in the Hague in no time flat – taken there by his own people!. Look at the incipient joy of the deposing of the current incumbent.
It comes to me roughly as laughable as a 220 lbs heavy guy sitting in the ground school class whining about how he is endangered and threatened by those 8-year old pupils.
Good analogy Flex. The 8 year old gets hold of a loaded gun. How safe is the 220lb guy?.
Any rational argument is pointless here because you obviously seem to assume that unlike in the US, in Iran a President can simply do what he wants without consequences – he gets up in a bad mood one day and thinks *hey, let’s fire some Shahabs on Haifa, the city sucks massively* – he takes out a black suitcase, opens it, pushes a red button and the thing is done. If you quit this childish notion, please come back to me and we will continue the debate.
Yet Ahmedinejad has threatened precisely that…not entirely a rational act?. Just last week an Iranian think tank espoused the view that now was a good time to strike at the UK in order to send a message to the new US regime?. Lastly we are told by those worldly and erudite, such as yourself, how the extreme elements in Iran have no support from the population – yet we never see evidence of this anywhere?. So tell me Flex, in your rational view, who stops Ahmedinejad from pushing the button?.
Regarding enhancing the range of Iranian missiles, what is so strange about it? It is a logical continuation of development, do you expect them to simply stop becasue they already achieved a range of xxx miles? What nation or company on this planet does that?
What an absurd statement. Have the US developed an ICBM that can fly farther than Russia?. Have the Russians developed one that flies farther than the US?. Of course not – they have achieved target range then used developments to raise throw weight NOT range!.
BTW, I find it very funny that you talk about logical maximization of the potential of GBI system but aty the same time act surprised that Iranians too want to exploit max. potential from their missile development.
Again a ludicrous comment Iran has its primary threat next door. What does it need 3000km ranged missiles for?. The US threat is in the middle east so it places interceptors where they can intercept. Not rocket science that one!
JonesySean,
The Chinese have had OTH a while. They’ve also had imaging birds for a good while both optical and SAR. Its hard to see what is new in the equation that leads you to the statement that the targetting argument is dead in the water?.
The OTH radar may get detections on all manner of contacts out to a 1000km and more, but, in those waters it will get a LOT of contacts. Trying to image all those in, around and heading for the Taiwan Straight is going to mean a lot of satellites and a lot of time in the search. Imaging software isnt going to be a great solution either as it will all hinge on aspect as to what image the satellite returns.
That brings us to the mysterious Kornet-E satellite. A designation I havent found associated with any NPO Mash design and not one Russia has launched recently. In fact I’ve only found one ref to that designation, not talking about the ATGM of the same name, which came from Richard ‘talk up the Chinese threat’ Fisher Jr – the single handed source of most of this ASBM idiocy.
The Russians do, of course, have realtime imagery capable birds – the new one being Persona developed off Arkon and Resurs platforms. Not easy to confuse with Kornet. The only other, recently deployed, imaging sat would be Kobalt-M but this would be no use whatsoever in naval recon as its a 60 day film-return bird!.
The real use for sats is in wide theatre search. For target ID you need a theatre loiter and retask capability…you dont get that with sats. You do get that with HALE UAV hence earlier comment.
JonesyThe idea is exactly as laughable and pathetic as an idea about US launching an ICBM on Iran and then blaming it on a *conspiracy of evil anti-Ayran high ranks of US military*.
Many people in their obsessive effort to look for enemies everywhere are willing to believe anything, no matter how outrageous. I have seen plenty of ridiculous explanations about why Iran is so damn dangerous to the whole world but this one has topped them all.
So you are suggesting that MAD would be effective in a non-MAD scenario?. Nope. Doesnt work that way. Iran is ever the poor victim bullied by the evil superpower after all look at what happened with the Shah…..blah, blah.
Any way you look at it Iran gets a free shot because no US President will be able to survive using a nuclear weapon on any target near to ‘innocent’ civillian infrastructure. Think about it. Currently a mis-aimed Hellfire is sufficient for all kinds of furore – inadvertently raising a few thousand Iranian civillians to several thousand degrees celsius is an absolute no go. No matter what the provocation.
Ballistic missiles are part of Irans future and with steadily increasing range. If their current threat focus is only on their neighbour then it begs the question of what they want the range of even some of their current missiles for?. Catch any Israeli’s holidaying in Greece perhaps?.
Then we come to the simple point that, after its launched, at the moment a ballistic missile is something you have to accept you’ll take the hit from. Having a better option is simple prudence. As clearly indicated the siting, scope and geometry of the GBI system in E.Europe is optimised for its advertised task. If the US has the money, the threat perception and the technology how suprising is it if the choose to deploy it in this way to maximise the system potential.?.
JonesyDid you read what I wrote? The Kornet satellites are the key. The OTH-B is analogous to an EW radar in a SAM system, not targeting but rather providing aiming data for the EO and radar satellites.
As for resolution, go into IEEE and search for OTH. You’ll be amused at some of the developments described therein.
…until 2009 when the first Kornet-clone constellation is fully operational.
Of course I read your blog and what you wrote above. Problem is what you’ve written on your blog does not go into sufficient detail or clarity to demonstrate to the reader the inherent flaws in the use of OTH, backscatter or surface wave, as a targetting system.
The way you have it reads, to the unknowing, that OTH is a perfectly adequate gunsight for an ASBM which it isnt. The mainstream media have this butt-backwards too though so, by no means am I criticizing just you, the Defence Data article is just as ‘technology-awed’. It states, categorically, that OTH has picked out RAAF Hercules aircraft from 1500km. This is prime horse-mess. OTH has detected an aircraft at 1500km and they have been able to correlate its position with a known aircraft. NOT the same thing.
That brings us to the second point here. Resolution. I can hear the cries now….’if OTH can spot an aircraft like a Herc of course it can get a hit on a carrier’… OTH works because it gets a bounce off the broadest part of an aircraft – its plan aspect. A C-130 has a 130ft wingspan…this is not a small radar target by any means…and it is in the open sky where there is little chance of clutter.
Clutter being the third point. As I have previously mentioned I’m in the IEEE, I’m a datacomms engineer now and as such the IEEE generate most of the protocol standards I use, I’ve read nearly everything I can lay my hands on on this one and one thing repeats itself frequently. The basic physics of OTH radar, backscatter mostly so, hasnt changed in at least 3 decades. The signal analysis is revolutionarily different but its still the same raw data being fed in. Look at the IEEE material yourself Sean how much is given over to processing advances – using fantastically clever algorythms – just to try and minimise wave clutter and false echo’s?. Why do you think people are working so hard on that aspect of the system?. Are you familiar with the story of the day a Type 22 frigate was attacked by a pair of sea skimming seagulls?. I’d imagine you would be and that incident shows the sincere limitations of software that makes ‘best guesses’ on received data.
Last point is, once again, saturation. I can find live AIS feeds from SCS but as representative of the challenge facing your satellite solution check this link and try and see whats going on in the Aegean – without using the track data. http://www.digital-seas.com/fleet_tracking/regions/medit_sea.html
Oh BTW I think you mean KONDOR-E and not KORNET for the NPO Mash satellite!
JonesySean for chrissakes they bought the blueprints for Russian EORSATs and RORSATs and are trying to assemble something out of the Legenda mess. OTH-B etc still lacks the resolution to target for anything…its a cueing asset.
In short there is NO……I repeat……NO viable targetting system for an ASBM existing or near term. The work on Global Hawk-clone HALE UAV’s that they are undertaking is good a possibility for a solution though.
JonesyWhy do you need to do that? Is there a target that a cruise missile is going to be after every 50 miles? You can also use EW radar signals to guide interceptor aircraft towards inbounds as well, you know.
TLAM, for example, doesnt necessarily have to follow a direct course to the target though SOC. Even though you may not have a target every 50 miles it would effect a TLAM little to fly 50 miles off course track and then turn back in.
Then there is the issue of saturation. Of course S-300 is a very powerful system but how many launch vehicles is a single TOMBSTONE able to control at a time and how many missiles is it able to guide simultaneously. Even then we come to the very basic concepts of radar horizoning and terrain masking. Can S-300 shoot at a target over the horizon or behing a ridgeline from the TOMBSTONE?.
Jonesy– persicope depth, returning to base
– manual only.
RSM55 stated it was on deep dive trials, though I’m unsure of his source for that, if the boat was at periscope depth the officer of the watch should have been able to ventilate the spaces before anyone perished. IF proper DC procedures existed on this boat.
JonesyWell, the SOC’s map is quite interesting. It shows some potential to reach the trajectory of the missiles launched from the most west bases (Name ?)
No. It doesnt. To achieve any kind of intercept the GBI would have to be launched at almost precisely the same time as the outbound ICBM. Otherwise its trying to tailchase…I assume I dont have to explain why that is a bad thing?.
Now, if we consider an attack toward i.e. Florida, the window of interception enlarges a little more.
So, by your own assessment, in countering a Russian full effort nuclear site on the US a GBI site in Poland would, possibly, be able to effect an intercept on missiles outbound from the very westernmost site only, and then only really if the outbounds were on a southerly course?.
Basically what you have said is that even IF the Polish GBI site was able to simultaneous launch with the outbound ICBM’s maybe, just maybe, the GBI’s might be able to intercept some missiles heading to Florida IF any from those westerly fields are targetted that far south?. I think that by trying to amplify the ‘threat to Russia’ angle you have actually shown that, even if your arguments were valid, the realistic impact from this site on a Russian massive strike would be so negligable as to be not worth considering.
and likely will be followed in the next decade by a fourth site in Scotland based on the existing LPAR located here).
The UK base is Fylingdales and is in Yorkshire, England not Scotland. Google Fylingdales and Missile Defence and I’m sure you’ll get all sorts of fantastic sites pop up!.
JonesyGame, set and match Sean.
JonesyQuoted for truth.
Absolutely not the case. The Iskanders would be there for political reasons, at most, to assuage unrealistic and dangerously unfounded Russian paranoia. Accept that this is a reflection of the general state of mind of the current Russian leadership and shudder!.
The Polish GBI’s are there for the mission they were always declared for. Deterrence of Iranian missile development. What is the point of the Iranians pouring billions into developing their current IRBM capability into multistage ICBM capability if its only going to get defeated by GBI in E.Europe anyway. The alternative being that they pour in the resources not only to develop the missiles but to deploy them in sufficient quantity to swamp the Polish GBI’s. That means tying up resource that is not then going into conventional or unconventional military capability.
Both ways, against the developing threat systems, the GBI’s in Poland are achieving a return just by being there. Is it cost-effective….probably not. What would be the costs of a nuclear tipped ICBM getting through to New York though?. Not my taxes paying for it, but, the Americans on the thread seem mostly to be happy to pay for it.
DJ,
Missiles from Iran flying to the US would pass over E.Europe far to the north of Turkey and Greece….which was why Poland was chosen to site the weapons.
JonesyThis is getting faintly desperate boys and girls.
DJ – you know full well that there is a significant difference between GBI type weapons in Poland and IRBM’s in Venezuela or Cuba. The accurate analogy, in every way, would be if Cuba were to grant permission for Russia to base Gorgon type missiles on its soil. In US vs Russia terms Cuban Gorgons would be just every bit as useful as GBI’s in Poland.
Russia stationing nuclear capable bombers in Venezuela is every Bush-loving neocons dream. It gives a ‘terrible scary threat’ that can be played up for the crowd but, in reality, would be an exposed white elephant of a capability easily, in strategic terms, isolated and reduced. The Russians, whatever you might think of them, aren’t that stupid.
Echo,
Well, it could potentially shield NATO? The UK and France still do have nuclear weapons, and Russia VS US “MAD” is more like Russia vs NATO “MAD” at the moment.
So, on an international forum, with many erudite and educated observers of the geopolitical situation on board you are seriously making the contention that Russia is p1ssed at the GBI’s in Poland because it will make it harder for Russia to nuke targets in W.Europe?.
Lets pretend that the question of the vulnerability of the site to SS-26 type conventional weapons hasnt been ducked once again. Lets entertain the paranoia ascribed to Russia by the pro-Russia elements here and say that the US has twisted Polands collective arm up its back and forced the expansion of the site to 100 GBI’s. What the bloody hell does all that do to stop squadrons of every kind of tactical and strategic aircraft launching enough nuclear tipped stand-off aeroballistc and cruise weapons to turn the whole of western Europe into a self-illuminating carpark?. Thats before we entertain the mobile IRBM’s fired outside the capture zone of fixed GBI’s or the SLBM’s and SLCM’s fired similarly on courses that venture nowhere near Poland.
Can we dispense with the idiocy that GBI’s in Poland will have any kind of meaningful impact on Russia’s capabilities to employ nuclear weapons in the European theatre.
Sign In
