[niknik]

Wouldn't that be such a awesome experience standing on that top deck like that?

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Obviously it's a provocative action. But it's a defensive weapon. In response to the upgrade in first strike weapons. I think if you look at how volatile the world is measures to intercept missiles is appropriate. Not only to intercept missiles, but as a deterrent to fire them.

Contrary to what some here who believe they are on the cutting edge of information. Nobody that represents a true threat is threatening Russia. And what threats Russia has seen are of their own making. It's all about positioning for power, like I said previously, Russia doesn't need to be a Super power again to prosper. In fact the military build up is counter productive to reaching prosperity in Russia.

As well as Russian control of the media. The Russian people are fed ridiculous conspiracy theories on a daily basis. For everything. From other nations trying to assassinate Putin, to a invasion to slaughter it's people. Russian media lies so much they make msnbc look upstanding.

Everybody knows Russian weapons and Russian soldiers have the blood of the Malaysian flight that was shot down on their hands. You know what the Russian people believe? That Putin was flying over that flight path just hours earlier, and it was a attempt to kill Putin by the Ukrainian government.

Reagan started talk of a missile shield back in the 80's.

Call it a defensive weapon if it makes you feel better.

The bottom line is it's an escalation, it gives 1 side the advantage in an exchange of missiles.

The only possible response to this is to either develop better missiles that can penetrate the shield, or build a shield yourself.

Either way, it's an escalation.

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

That's a respectful position. I don't agree so I'm going to call you dumb. Wow, that position totally makes you seem superior. Especially when you site zero examples of threats that would constitute a build up of nuclear capabilities.

I think you have your head buried in the vodka. You want to believe America is a threat to Russia, and the proper response is a arms race.

I disagree.

The American response to Russia sending missiles to Cuba was almost a nuclear war, and a 40 year embargo.

So how do you think Russia would respond to having NATO next door to it?

[niknik]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Reagan started talk of a missile shield back in the 80's.

Call it a defensive weapon if it makes you feel better.

The bottom line is it's an escalation, it gives 1 side the advantage in an exchange of missiles.

The only possible response to this is to either develop better missiles that can penetrate the shield, or build a shield yourself.

Either way, it's an escalation.

You're saying that as if Russia wasn't doing anything to better it's military position. It sounds like you're saying it's completely understandable that Russia upgrade it's military however it sees fit. But if America does it, it's provocative.

That's typical anti American garbage. Blame America. Anything America does to ensure its protected us wrong, and everyone else can do whatever they want. Oh, except Israel.

[Lookdavook]

what a textbook jarhead you belong on the battlefield but not on forums where intellectual thoughts are exchanged

[rob666]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

You're saying that as if Russia wasn't doing anything to better it's military position. It sounds like you're saying it's completely understandable that Russia upgrade it's military however it sees fit. But if America does it, it's provocative.

That's typical anti American garbage. Blame America. Anything America does to ensure its protected us wrong, and everyone else can do whatever they want. Oh, except Israel.

Russia has cut it's number of nukes by half in the last 10 years, and is not actively pursuing a missile shield.

I don't know where you're getting information that Russia is developing tactical nukes, or that America doesn't already have them.

It's already public knowledge that NATO has tactical nukes in Europe.

[ralucagymnast]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Russia has cut it's number of nukes by half in the last 10 years, and is not actively pursuing a missile shield.

I don't know where you're getting information that Russia is developing tactical nukes, or that America doesn't already have them.

It's already public knowledge that NATO has tactical nukes in Europe.

Didnt Russia break a treaty by developing a new ICBM RS-26 aka Rubezh?

[rob666]

Originally Posted by ralucagymnast ↗

Didnt Russia break a treaty by developing a new ICBM RS-26 aka Rubezh?

Possibly, it's debatable.

That missile was developed to get through the missile shields being deployed by NATO. It's really neither an ICBM or a cruise missile, it's kind of a hybrid of both.

[ralucagymnast]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Possibly, it's debatable.

That missile was developed to get through the missile shields being deployed by NATO. It's really neither an ICBM or a cruise missile, it's kind of a hybrid of both.

Yeah I think its an IRBM if my memory serves me correctly? Werent IRBM's banned under the START treaty, the most recent one?

[Mr Poo]

Originally Posted by ralucagymnast ↗

Yeah I think its an IRBM if my memory serves me correctly? Werent IRBM's banned under the START treaty, the most recent one?

On 13 December 2001, President of the US, George W. Bush gave Russia a 6-month notice of US intent to withdraw from the ABM Treaty so that the United States could pursue development of the program at that time known as National Missile Defense (NMD)-already under way, in potential violation of US treaty obligations.

On 10 February 2007, Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin declared that the INF Treaty no longer serves Russia's interests. On 14 February, ITAR-Tass and Interfax quoted General Yuri Baluyevsky, the Russian military's chief of general staff, as saying that Russia could pull out of the INF, and that the decision would depend on the United States' actions with its proposed Ground-Based Midcourse Defense missile defense system.

In 2012, the United States complained about Russian treaty violations. The two systems that appear to be violations are the R-500, a cruise missile using the 9K720 Iskander launcher, and a short ranged ICBM. In July 2014, the United States formally notified Russia of the breach, while Russian officials called the treaty unsuitable for Russia and unfair because other countries in Asia had such weapons.