Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 27 of 27
  1. #21  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by CaughtintheMiddle1990 View Post
    I'm a little confused on this whole START issue...
    Why is this such a big issue now yet wasn't nearly as controversial when JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush I did similar measures during the Cold War? Didn't we have SALT I under Nixon and the original START in 1990 or 1991?

    I mean the original START had it's genesis under Reagan, who wanted it to be SALT III.
    Usually when two countries negotiate a treaty the negotiations have been done in the background and the fine details remain.Treaty's are mostly give and take,You give me this and I'll give you that.The skill on the negotiator is in what to give and what to ask for in return.If one side is over anxious they tend to give away too much .

    Russia gave up old obsolete system of missiles that were due to be junked already and Obama's team gave away our entire missile defense system and refuse to release the full details of what else was negotiated away.

    Russia won big and has little to do in order to comply with the treaty,the old missiles are inoperative and unarmed .We have to dismantle active ABM systems in order to comply.

    This boob is a master at lying to your face and smiling at you at the same time.Reagan was tough on the Russians and held them to their agreements unlike this guy.Reagan 'danced' them into a corner every time they tried to pull a fast one on America.

    This critter pulls down Americas draws and tells the Russians to take a shot at it.

    http://www.examiner.com/conservative...e-duck-session

    I Hope that answers your questions .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,080
    Obama's team gave away our entire missile defense system
    Did you even bother reading what I posted earlier? Or do you just enjoy being wrong?

    So all the THAAD systems are gone? We're no longer using the AEGIS system? Or the GMD?

    Missile defenses based out of ICBM launchers. That is all that was agreed apon. Nothing more.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    Did you even bother reading what I posted earlier? Or do you just enjoy being wrong?

    So all the THAAD systems are gone? We're no longer using the AEGIS system? Or the GMD?

    Missile defenses based out of ICBM launchers. That is all that was agreed apon. Nothing more.
    From your limited point of view all that you posts is Infallible but from my point of view you are very far from being an acknowledged expert in all thing military .That being the case you can expect me to disagree with your point of view quite often .

    AEGIS Isn't actually part of the main line ABM system. Its a ship born shorter range tactical ABM missile defense system like the Patriot system designed to protect carrier Strike Groups.

    One important difference from Aegis is the use of X band in the SBX. Aegis uses S band, and Patriot uses the higher-frequency C band. The X band frequency is higher still, so its shorter wavelength enables finer resolution of tracked objects

    SBX ABM was designed to defend against heavy MIRVed ICBM'S using huge land and Sea-Based X-Band Radar.

    The radar is described by Lt. Gen Trey Obering (director of MDA) as being able to track an object the size of a baseball over San Francisco in California from the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, approximately 2,900 miles (4,700 km) away. The radar will guide land-based missiles from Alaska and California, as well as in-theatre assets.

    THAD is an older system and uses radar AN/TPY-2 radar has a max range of a little over six hundred miles.

    And GMD is an interceptor missile not a system.

    GMD/BV-Plus American anti-ballistic missile. Three-stage booster for use with the Missile Defense Agency's Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. Built by Lockheed Martin Corp., the booster was one of two slated for use with the GMD system. The system was designed to intercept and destroy long-range ballistic missiles
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    From your limited point of view all that you posts is Infallible but from my point of view you are very far from being an acknowledged expert in all thing military .That being the case you can expect me to disagree with your point of view quite often .

    AEGIS Isn't actually part of the main line ABM system. Its a ship born shorter range tactical ABM missile defense system like the Patriot system designed to protect carrier Strike Groups.

    One important difference from Aegis is the use of X band in the SBX. Aegis uses S band, and Patriot uses the higher-frequency C band. The X band frequency is higher still, so its shorter wavelength enables finer resolution of tracked objects

    SBX ABM was designed to defend against heavy MIRVed ICBM'S using huge land and Sea-Based X-Band Radar.

    The radar is described by Lt. Gen Trey Obering (director of MDA) as being able to track an object the size of a baseball over San Francisco in California from the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia, approximately 2,900 miles (4,700 km) away. The radar will guide land-based missiles from Alaska and California, as well as in-theatre assets.

    THAD is an older system and uses radar AN/TPY-2 radar has a max range of a little over six hundred miles.

    And GMD is an interceptor missile not a system.

    GMD/BV-Plus American anti-ballistic missile. Three-stage booster for use with the Missile Defense Agency's Ground-based Midcourse Defense System. Built by Lockheed Martin Corp., the booster was one of two slated for use with the GMD system. The system was designed to intercept and destroy long-range ballistic missiles
    So lets cover some of your issues here. First off, you make an assinine post about how Obama gives away all of our missile defense capabilities, then create a huge post extolling the virtues of how robust and elaborate our multiple capabilities are. But you got a few things wrong in there.

    THAAD is a brand new system, engineering starting in 2004. It was just deployed last year. I know this because I was briefing the sorties that deployed it to Hawaii.

    The GMD is not a missile, it is a system that utilizes many differant integrated tools. Interceptor missiles, ground and sea based radar, and BMC3's. It is a wide spread system. It was what we planned on putting into eastern Europe originally.

    Our current AEGIS is part of the mainline defense. It is the main part of the PAA that we will use to provide Ballistic Missile Defense to Europe with the cancellation of the GMD plan. We currently have 5 DDG's in the Atlantic fleet that have this capability, with at least 6 more being added to the list over the next few years. By 2015, our total ship based capabilities will have increased from 21 to 38.

    So don't even tell me about my "limited" point of view when you got all of that wrong.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,638
    Quote Originally Posted by CaughtintheMiddle1990 View Post
    I'm a little confused on this whole START issue...
    Why is this such a big issue now yet wasn't nearly as controversial when JFK, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush I did similar measures during the Cold War? Didn't we have SALT I under Nixon and the original START in 1990 or 1991?

    I mean the original START had it's genesis under Reagan, who wanted it to be SALT III.
    But Reagan withdrew from START over missile defense, recognizing that the Soviets would be unable to match it, and that it would render their offensive capability obsolete. And, this treaty fails on so many levels that it is almost impossible to imagine anyone but Obama (okay, or Jimmy Carter) going for it. See below for my objections.

    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    So lets cover some of your issues here. First off, you make an assinine post about how Obama gives away all of our missile defense capabilities, then create a huge post extolling the virtues of how robust and elaborate our multiple capabilities are. But you got a few things wrong in there.

    THAAD is a brand new system, engineering starting in 2004. It was just deployed last year. I know this because I was briefing the sorties that deployed it to Hawaii.

    The GMD is not a missile, it is a system that utilizes many differant integrated tools. Interceptor missiles, ground and sea based radar, and BMC3's. It is a wide spread system. It was what we planned on putting into eastern Europe originally.

    Our current AEGIS is part of the mainline defense. It is the main part of the PAA that we will use to provide Ballistic Missile Defense to Europe with the cancellation of the GMD plan. We currently have 5 DDG's in the Atlantic fleet that have this capability, with at least 6 more being added to the list over the next few years. By 2015, our total ship based capabilities will have increased from 21 to 38.

    So don't even tell me about my "limited" point of view when you got all of that wrong.
    However, START did create areas of vulnerability. First, the replacement of the land-based interceptors with sea-based units puts the sea-based units out of position for the primary threat, which is not Russia, but Iran, which already has missiles capable of reaching Eastern Europe. Second, the land-based systems are part of an initial deployment, as the threat matures, so will our response. Now we have to start from scratch with the next administration. Thrid, the abandonment of the deployment was done to placate Russia, but has gained nothing in return. Russia is supplying equipment and knowledge to Iran, both in nuclear and missile technology, and is deliberately undermining us in every other area, so it's bad from a diplomatic position, as well. It also undermines our credibility with our allies, especially nations that were scheduled to host the systems. They agreed to do so in the face of Russian anger, and had a lot to lose, and by abandoning them, we have left them to Putin's mercy. And, it undermines our credibility with our enemies. Iran, for example, sees this as weakness and appeasement, and has actually increased the pace of their nuclear program. North Korea sees the same thing, and rattles its saber, and don't get me started on China.

    A treaty that weakens our defenses, hurts our alliances and strengthens our adversaries is a bad deal all around.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,080
    Ships in the Mediterranean, the North Sea, and potentially the Black Sea will provide just as good coverage as the ground based system would have.

    As for giving up things for nothing in return... well it's limiting the Russians just as much as we are, and it does not weaken our nuclear threat. We will still have more then enough assets to wipe out the world twice over. But it is going to lower the cost of a ton of maintenance that we provide on nuclear facilities that we won't be using anymore.

    Considering that we want to shrink the deficit, I'm not seeing an issue here. We save money, and still have plenty of cabapility to attack, and defend.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    Ships in the Mediterranean, the North Sea, and potentially the Black Sea will provide just as good coverage as the ground based system would have.

    As for giving up things for nothing in return... well it's limiting the Russians just as much as we are, and it does not weaken our nuclear threat. We will still have more then enough assets to wipe out the world twice over. But it is going to lower the cost of a ton of maintenance that we provide on nuclear facilities that we won't be using anymore.

    Considering that we want to shrink the deficit, I'm not seeing an issue here. We save money, and still have plenty of cabapility to attack, and defend.
    Why don't you finish it.And provide a peacetime bonus to spend on the great society !Spoken like a true liberal.

    They should transfer your butt to the army and teach you something about real world warfare .

    Watch my lips airman Jones.Russia is still our enemy and and works every day towards our destruction.They counter our every move in the world and arm our enemies with sophisticated weaponry.
    ABM counters their world ambitions so they want to stop its development and deployment any way they are able.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •