It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
WASHINGTON - A number of top U.S-based physicists have concluded that the Bush administration used inaccurate claims to reassure NATO allies about U.S. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe. ADVERTISEMENT
They say the planned Polish-based interceptors and a radar system in the Czech Republic could target and catch Russian missiles, thus threatening Russia's nuclear deterrent.
That view supports Russia's criticism of the system. Russia adamantly opposes the plan, and the dispute has helped escalate U.S.-Russian tensions to the highest point since the Cold War.
Three other physicists also reviewed Postol's findings and said they found them accurate:
_Richard Garwin, a National Science Award winner who is credited with the design of the first hydrogen bomb. Garwin served on the Rumsfeld Commission, an independent panel appointed by Congress in the 1990s to assess the threat to the United States from ballistic missiles.
_Philip Coyle, a former associate director of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Coyle was assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration in charge of testing weapons systems.
_David Wright, a physicist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nuclear nonproliferation and environmental advocacy group.
Originally posted by iskander
Any thoughts on why exactly America is actively engaged in undermining its own MAD scenario, and antagonizing a major nuclear power into yet another cycle of deadly nuclear games?
Originally posted by iskander
OK then, I’m glad that we're all on the same page.
Who cares about what the guy that made the first hydrogen bomb has to say.
He must be one of those crazy leftist, even though it was actually his job to access ballistic missile threat, as appointed by the Congress.
So if all this is fair and a totally normal state of affairs, then I'm sure nobody here will disagree if Russians decide to build new radar installations and then put their new S-400 and upcoming S-500 sites in Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, and so on.
It'll be just politics, right?
Originally posted by iskander
Who cares about what the guy that made the first hydrogen bomb has to say.
Originally posted by iskander
He must be one of those crazy leftist, even though it was actually his job to access ballistic missile threat, as appointed by the Congress.
Originally posted by iskander
So if all this is fair and a totally normal state of affairs, then I'm sure nobody here will disagree if Russians decide to build new radar installations and then put their new S-400 and upcoming S-500 sites in Cuba, Venezuela, N. Korea, and so on.
Originally posted by chinawhite
Its a precedent.
Next thing you know, after its induction plans are complete they will "upgrade" these missiles for "maintenance" purposes because of the "success" the current ones are so they put more and better missiles in place because their was no rejections to these current plans
People like you are always saying, this tierd argument, scince there is no country capable of launching missiles towards U.S.A. ( Iran Syria) and these nations would not cause heavy damage to U.S.A. it's safe to say these instalations are to threaten Russia, you claim Rus lost it's hardware, what hardware did it losse to engange in a nuke war, when fact Russia still has hundreds of ICBM's on subs and in silo's that it can launch, where's the proof the lost this hardware
Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
To say it one more time: There is NO new arms race going on...
Russia is just modernising its army and packing heat because it lost a lot off hardware in the USSR-Russia transistion.
USA is modernising its army because off the new nature off fighting wars.
China is becoming a superpower and for the rest... It is all the same # in the world repeating itself.
So no new arms race in here...
If the Russians wanted to put radars in all the places you mentioned, I don't think the U.S. would have a real problem with it.
Likewise missile sites, if each site was limited to 10-12 weapons, and said weapons were more or less useless against anything *but* a ballistic missile.
In 1961, the U.S. deployed 15 Jupiter IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) at İzmir, Turkey, aimed at the western USSR's cities, including Moscow. Given its 1,500-mile range, Moscow was only 16 minutes away. Yet, Kennedy gave them low strategic value, given that a SSBN submarine provided the same magnitude of threat, and from a distance.
Khrushchev publicly expressed anger and personal offence from the Turkish missile emplacement. The Cuban missile deployment — the first time Soviet missiles were outside the USSR — was his response to U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey. Previously, Khrushchev had expressed doubt to the poet Robert Frost about the readiness of the "liberal" U.S. to fight over tough issues.[9]
It's not as though the U.S. is planning to fence in the entire Russian border with huge arrays of missile launchers, each capable of firing several hundred anti-aircraft or anti-missile rounds.
Dr. Postol's position with regard to this anti-missile system is very interesting. He's one of the loudest voices proclaiming the utter failure of the Patriot in an anti-missile role, and has, in the past, been an outspoken proponent of the idea that defense against ballistic missiles is a technical and / or practical impossibility.
Suddenly, it's not only a possibility, it's so bloody effective that a couple of dozen interceptors have sufficient leverage to trigger a new arms race.
To say it one more time: There is NO new arms race going on...
Russia is just modernising its army and packing heat because it lost a lot off hardware in the USSR-Russia transistion.
USA is modernising its army because off the new nature off fighting wars.
China is becoming a superpower and for the rest... It is all the same # in the world repeating itself.
are you serious? Edward Teller has returned from the grave, god be praised.
Quite the contrary he was one of the most brilliant men to have ever lived(and a staunch backer of SDI and its decedents)
Hmmm and what would these missile sites be defending against?
So I would ask if our leaders wanted to protect anyone why did they revoke funding of THEL? A proven laser interceptor.
MAD is an ignorant concept that only insures the end of this age of civilization.
My point is the approach of Bush is useless except to antagonize nearly the entire world. And it achieves a very false sense of security. As to nuclear disarmament, our present program of using MOX fuel to use up the old Soviet nuclear plutonium has slowed to a crawl. We can only speculate that it is due to spending cuts
Originally posted by iskander
OK, are you guys on the payroll or did social programming reach a new level?
What are your positions on colonial expansion and slavery?
Likewise missile sites, if each site was limited to 10-12 weapons, and said weapons were more or less useless against anything *but* a ballistic missile.
Remember the Cuban missile crisis? Rings a bell? What were the conditions of the agreement?
In 1961, the U.S. deployed 15 Jupiter IRBMs (intermediate-range ballistic missiles) at İzmir, Turkey, aimed at the western USSR's cities, including Moscow. Given its 1,500-mile range, Moscow was only 16 minutes away. Yet, Kennedy gave them low strategic value, given that a SSBN submarine provided the same magnitude of threat, and from a distance.
Khrushchev publicly expressed anger and personal offence from the Turkish missile emplacement. The Cuban missile deployment — the first time Soviet missiles were outside the USSR — was his response to U.S. nuclear missiles in Turkey. Previously, Khrushchev had expressed doubt to the poet Robert Frost about the readiness of the "liberal" U.S. to fight over tough issues.[9]
Condition 1 – removal of American Juiter missiles from Turkey (which were actually only replaced for more advanced models)
How about this, why don’t YOU compile a chronological action-reaction graph to show us all who actually drove the cold war arms race?
Something like year period 1950 to 1960, US deploys these weapon systems while USSR deploys these weapon systems.
I’m really looking forward to seeing the FACTUALL picture of how by 1960 USSR was literally SURROUNDED by American nuclear missiles, while USSR had ZERO missiles outside of their own territory.
Oh and is this the official policy written down somewhere? Can I have a read?
Here’s a simple example, if somebody points a .22 caliber pistol at a police officer in a bullet proof vest and gets shot in return, him saying that the cop should not have shot him because he knew that a .22 bullet would not have penetrated the vest, would not be a very good defense at a trial, don’t you think?
Anti ballistic missiles will NOT provide reliable defense, it’s a fact, because it only takes ONE to bring devastating damage, but at the same time they do ANTAGONISE and THRETEN, while bringing a nice fat PROFIT to the folks that make them.
The only effectiveness such installation provides if the fueling of the ARMS RACE IT SELF!
Russia is just modernising its army and packing heat because it lost a lot off hardware in the USSR-Russia transistion.
I’m not following you here, Russia is modernizing and “packing heat” by getting all bent out of shape because of our anti-missile defense installation plans?
China is becoming a superpower and for the rest... It is all the same # in the world repeating itself.
Well I’m glad that everything is figured out here, because it’s only us who can “modernize” our forces, since we’re the democratic freedom loving nation after all, and arms races happen only when other nations arm them selves.
Originally posted by uberarcanist
This thread is a bit tl;dr, so I hope I'm not repeating something someone already said. But the Bushies want an arms race because it will greatly increase the profits of the military-industrial complex!!! Isn't it obvious???
Originally posted by iskander
OK, are you guys on the payroll or did social programming reach a new level?
What are your positions on colonial expansion and slavery?
Who is the person whose words will bare any credibility for you? The president of the Unitd States? Jesus Christ? Name a GUY whose words you’ll believe!
So what’s the reasoning here, how dare those war mongering Russkies wanting us to take our gun from their temple, and asking us to stop invading and killing whom ever we want?
How about this, why don’t YOU compile a chronological action-reaction graph to show us all who actually drove the cold war arms race?
Something like year period 1950 to 1960, US deploys these weapon systems while USSR deploys these weapon systems.
I’m really looking forward to seeing the FACTUALL picture of how by 1960 USSR was literally SURROUNDED by American nuclear missiles, while USSR had ZERO missiles outside of their own territory.
It's not as though the U.S. is planning to fence in the entire Russian border with huge arrays of missile launchers, each capable of firing several hundred anti-aircraft or anti-missile rounds.
Oh and is this the official policy written down somewhere? Can I have a read?
So we already learned on the mistakes of our past, and there is a law somewhere that guarantees that American people will not be threatened by retaliatory actions from another nation?
Dr. Postol's position with regard to this anti-missile system is very interesting. He's one of the loudest voices proclaiming the utter failure of the Patriot in an anti-missile role, and has, in the past, been an outspoken proponent of the idea that defense against ballistic missiles is a technical and / or practical impossibility.
Absolutely true, and that’s because technical capability is not equal to political fall out.
Here’s a simple example, if somebody points a .22 caliber pistol at a police officer in a bullet proof vest and gets shot in return, him saying that the cop should not have shot him because he knew that a .22 bullet would not have penetrated the vest, would not be a very good defense at a trial, don’t you think?