Russian Not-so-covert Spying

[BoB 0]

Russian planes intercepted by RAF

 

Second Cold War anyone?

[Kaiser_Smeghead 0]

I wouldn't worry to much about that. I bet that kind of stuff happens all the time, not only with the Russians spying on the west but the west spying on the Russians. Just because the cold war is over doesn't mean that decades of suspicion and distrust would suddenly vanish.

[Accele 0]

I don't know, Russia has been acting a little weird lately. Not alarmingly so, but a lot of news from there just seems "off."

[Goose 0]

Hah, busted. I bet they were feeling left out of the excersize.

[Logan Hartke 0]

That's what happens when the only vessels that you have worth sending have a contamination risk.

 

Logan Hartke

[Rattuskid 0]

Not like any western nation ever gets caught spying...

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/asia-pacific/1317489.stm

[flyby 0]

The US spying?

Nah....impossible, that must be contra-propaganda of the enemy!

 

One of the reasons, Accele, Russia is acting "strange" is because the US is delaing with Poland and Czechia to install a defence shield agains the treat going out from Iran...

 

Now, take a map of Europe, lookup Poland, Czechia and Iran...

It would make a lot more sense to install a rocketshield in Turkey, if you want to intercept Iran's missiles. So clearly, the USA words do not match their deeds.

[Logan Hartke 0]

It would make a lot more sense to install a rocketshield in Turkey, if you want to intercept Iran's missiles. So clearly, the USA words do not match their deeds.

That's actually not true. Ballistic missiles don't take a straight-line path map-wise. Get a globe out and you'll begin to see what I mean. Also, Turkey doesn't give as much time as the other countries for intercept and is a much greater defense risk.

 

First of all, it's within range of Iran's conventional forces. The Iranians could hit sites in Turkey with air-refueled, low-level Su-24s escorted by F-14s. That's well within their technical capabilities.

 

Second, Turkey places a far greater chance of a commando-type attack against such a facility due to its prime real estate in the Middle East. Why do you think the US isn't planning to install these in Iraq, either? That's a no-brainer.

 

Turkey would not be a better, more logical, more honest, or more sensible approach. Besides, Russia didn't like US missiles in Turkey, either.

 

Logan Hartke

[mastermind 0]

The US spying?

Nah....impossible, that must be contra-propaganda of the enemy!

 

One of the reasons, Accele, Russia is acting "strange" is because the US is delaing with Poland and Czechia to install a defence shield agains the treat going out from Iran...

 

Now, take a map of Europe, lookup Poland, Czechia and Iran...

It would make a lot more sense to install a rocketshield in Turkey, if you want to intercept Iran's missiles. So clearly, the USA words do not match their deeds.

What good is 10 missiles and a radar going to do against Russia? Unless their ballistic forces are so terrible that they only have about 5 functional missiles, it won't make any difference at all.

[Korona 0]

Reminds me of the "rock" incident.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...ticle718476.ece

 

There's nothing wrong with spying, but there is something wrong with being caught :P

[flyby 0]

That's actually not true.  Ballistic missiles don't take a straight-line path map-wise.  Get a globe out and you'll begin to see what I mean.  Also, Turkey doesn't give as much time as the other countries for intercept and is a much greater defense risk.

 

First of all, it's within range of Iran's conventional forces.  The Iranians could hit sites in Turkey with air-refueled, low-level Su-24s escorted by F-14s.  That's well within their technical capabilities.

 

Second, Turkey places a far greater chance of a commando-type attack against such a facility due to its prime real estate in the Middle East.  Why do you think the US isn't planning to install these in Iraq, either?  That's a no-brainer.

 

Turkey would not be a better, more logical, more honest, or more sensible approach.  Besides, Russia didn't like US missiles in Turkey, either.

 

Logan Hartke

I think Logan you're focusing on the wrong part of the story. This is not about Iran at all...

 

You still consider the pentagon's explanation to be true: that the shield is there to stop Iranian ballistic missiles. I say it's not. It's clearly aimed for Russia and that is the reason why Puttin is so "upset" about it. Considering the rather aggressive attitude of the US in the last 10 years and the hasty enlargement of the EU towards Russia, i can have a certain understanding for that Russian perspective.

 

The issue, I see is that the USA tries to sell it to the rest of the world as "a shield against Iranian missiles" where in reality the US is exploiting its connections with Poland and Czechia to install early warning systems against Russian IBCM's.

 

At this moment, Iran does not have any ICBM's and cautious predictions indicate it will take at least till 2015 or even 2020 before they've developed them.

Iran is not a big enough treat warrant the billions spend in an early warning system and ballistic missiles shield. In fact, Iran has way better relations with Europe then with the USA. As a result it does not serve Poland and Czechia to protect themselves from Iranian missiles. Nor does it serve to protect Europe, considering the agreement was realised outside the influence of NATO.

 

The ballistic missile shield against Iran is a smokescreen to scare the US public. You all fear Iran so its keeps the investment of such a shield publicly acceptable.

The real aim is Russia however.

We've all got used to the idea that the Russian war machine is totally broken and lays to rot in some abandoned harbours. True, those have been the consequences of Jeltsin's of the sudden implementation of the free market system in a communist country. It was a disaster...

However, with Puttin things are run differently. It took him a few years to put all pieces back together, but with the state acquisition of all energy sources and the prices soaring up, the oil money is being drained into the war economy again.

 

And that's the real reason for the hasty implementation of the rocket shield.

 

The odd and fishy detail is that this implementation did not go through the NATO Alliance, but through direct channels with Poland and Czechia, bypassing the EU's input. It shatters the other smokescreen, as "to provide security for its allies in Europe".

[Logan Hartke 0]

Right there, though, you're ignoring the technical aspects that are necessary for your little conspiracy theory to work. The first is that we'd need an "early warning system" against Russian missiles, when, in fact, our satellites have been doing that since the 1970s better than any land-based system could.

 

Secondly, as mastermind pointed out, the few interceptors that would be based in Europe would only be useful against rogue nations with nuclear weapons, not Russia's massive arsenal, for which it would be like holding a Kevlar helmet in front of your body while someone fires a shotgun at you.

 

Thirdly, you again aren't thinking of the missile arcs. US-headed ICBMs never cross anywhere near the Czech Republic. They're taking the great circle route over the north pole, like bombers would. We've known that since the 1970s. Interceptors in the Czech Republic are a wee bit silly, as they wouldn't even be poised to intercept Russian missiles. A system in Canada on the other hand, would.

 

Iran would have ICBMs by 2015-2020 if they didn't receive any major help from Russia, China, North Korea, or Pakistan. We don't know that they won't. Furthermore, even if the green light were to be given to this project tomorrow, it's not like it'll be operational by Christmas. It probably won't be up and going until 2015, right at the start of your proposed window.

 

The conspiracy theory sounds great and all, but the science just doesn't match the sensationalism. Without that, it's all just another silly conspiracy theory. Right now, the science of it ranks right up there with Bigfoot killing JFK while working for the CIA.

 

Logan Hartke

[Count von Phoib 0]

That's actually not true.  Ballistic missiles don't take a straight-line path map-wise.  Get a globe out and you'll begin to see what I mean.  Also, Turkey doesn't give as much time as the other countries for intercept and is a much greater defense risk.

 

First of all, it's within range of Iran's conventional forces.  The Iranians could hit sites in Turkey with air-refueled, low-level Su-24s escorted by F-14s.  That's well within their technical capabilities.

 

Second, Turkey places a far greater chance of a commando-type attack against such a facility due to its prime real estate in the Middle East.  Why do you think the US isn't planning to install these in Iraq, either?  That's a no-brainer.

 

Turkey would not be a better, more logical, more honest, or more sensible approach.  Besides, Russia didn't like US missiles in Turkey, either.

 

Logan Hartke

I think Logan you're focusing on the wrong part of the story. This is not about Iran at all...

 

You still consider the pentagon's explanation to be true: that the shield is there to stop Iranian ballistic missiles. I say it's not. It's clearly aimed for Russia and that is the reason why Puttin is so "upset" about it. Considering the rather aggressive attitude of the US in the last 10 years and the hasty enlargement of the EU towards Russia, i can have a certain understanding for that Russian perspective.

 

The issue, I see is that the USA tries to sell it to the rest of the world as "a shield against Iranian missiles" where in reality the US is exploiting its connections with Poland and Czechia to install early warning systems against Russian IBCM's.

 

At this moment, Iran does not have any ICBM's and cautious predictions indicate it will take at least till 2015 or even 2020 before they've developed them.

Iran is not a big enough treat warrant the billions spend in an early warning system and ballistic missiles shield. In fact, Iran has way better relations with Europe then with the USA. As a result it does not serve Poland and Czechia to protect themselves from Iranian missiles. Nor does it serve to protect Europe, considering the agreement was realised outside the influence of NATO.

 

The ballistic missile shield against Iran is a smokescreen to scare the US public. You all fear Iran so its keeps the investment of such a shield publicly acceptable.

The real aim is Russia however.

We've all got used to the idea that the Russian war machine is totally broken and lays to rot in some abandoned harbours. True, those have been the consequences of Jeltsin's of the sudden implementation of the free market system in a communist country. It was a disaster...

However, with Puttin things are run differently. It took him a few years to put all pieces back together, but with the state acquisition of all energy sources and the prices soaring up, the oil money is being drained into the war economy again.

 

And that's the real reason for the hasty implementation of the rocket shield.

 

The odd and fishy detail is that this implementation did not go through the NATO Alliance, but through direct channels with Poland and Czechia, bypassing the EU's input. It shatters the other smokescreen, as "to provide security for its allies in Europe".

Any missiles launched from Russia against the USA would come from Northern Siberia, mostly from north of Novosibirsk and Tomsk. That would be a flight line straight accross the Arctic, not accross Europe. It's the same reason that planes from Europe cross Iceland and Greenland, it's actually a shorter line then a geographical east-west line, and since Western Russia is getting a bit crowded (with Datscha's, but hey...) I doubt they would launch anything from the region west of the Urals.

 

Also, such shields would be pointless against submarine launched missiles...

 

Also, please read a bit more into the Russian economy, to consider their capabilities to wage a war anytime soon against the West...

[Pratom 0]

There not to good at being covert are they?

[Korona 0]

The system obviously is as much about political spin as it is about actual military efficacy. Putting friendly military installations in previously Soviet-bloc countries sends a strong message to a would-be next strongman of Russia. However much he wants it, Putin won't be able to get back what was lost with the fall of the USSR and a Russian superstate won't be able to rely on a buffer of satilites, should he achieve his dream of creating a new police state...

 

To Iran it says, don't bother getting ICBMs we are decades ahead of you. Notwithstanding that a nuclear attack (on anyone) would mean instant annihilation in response, it is unlikely that the attack would even be effective.

 

It serves both purposes and I doubt the policy makers in Washington would be oblivious to the message it sends to Russia.

 

Lastly it also sends a message to the EU, that the US doesn't think much of the supposed "united front" the EU is meant to be offering these days. To be honest, when we can't even agree on a constitution, I don't think much of it either :P

[Goose 0]

There not to good at being covert are they?

Well they weren't exactly using the most stealthy, fast, or agile plane were they.

[flyby 0]

....for your little conspiracy theory to work.

It's not about "a conspiracy theory", but about US credibility on world politics.

I'm sorry to say that America dropped a few levels in the last few years.

But it is of course more convenient for conservative America to portrait scepticism as "wacko conspiracy idiotry".

 

If you (and that doesn’t only limited to Logan) want to believe it is a anti-Iranian ICBM shield, fine with me. I don't. And that's about all there is to say about it.

 

None of us have any real input into this anyway. It's just our opinions and they, obviously, collide...

[mastermind 0]

....for your little conspiracy theory to work.

It's not about "a conspiracy theory", but about US credibility on world politics.

I'm sorry to say that America dropped a few levels in the last few years.

But it is of course more convenient for conservative America to portrait scepticism as "wacko conspiracy idiotry".

 

If you (and that doesn’t only limited to Logan) want to believe it is a anti-Iranian ICBM shield, fine with me. I don't. And that's about all there is to say about it.

 

None of us have any real input into this anyway. It's just our opinions and they, obviously, collide...

Your opinion doesn't make any sense in any sort of technical fashion though. That makes it nothing more than a paranoid conspiracy theory.

[Logan Hartke 0]

If you (and that doesn’t only limited to Logan) want to believe it is a anti-Iranian ICBM shield, fine with me. I don't. And that's about all there is to say about it.

I thought you started off saying...

So clearly, the USA words do not match their deeds.

"Clearly" implies some sort of obvious, in your face evidence. When I and a number of other people (including a number of non-"conservative Americans") pointed out how your interpretation of geography that backed your claim was flawed, it should have shown you that your interpretation of events was also flawed. Instead, in the absence of scientific backing for your theory, you still cling to your belief, showing that it isn't based in science at all, but a pre-conceived opinion or notion that you have in regards to the current US government.

 

So, in that case, you're right. We're not going to change your opinion and this is now a case of a battle of opinions that differ. Do not, however, make this out to have always been a debate over opinions. We didn't discuss the intentions of the administration at all. It was a discussion over "evidence", and when your evidence showed itself to be non-existent, your devotion to the idea remain unwavering, a clear sign that it had nothing to do with your theory in the first place.

 

Logan Hartke

[IconOfEvi 0]

BoB, you beat me to it because I wasn't here :P.

 

Now as for this intercept...if I recall, intercepts of Bears was a very very common thing in the Cold War, and quite friendly too. Though they are noisy as hell, they can store a lot of sensors and keep aloft for a long time.

 

As for the debate now.

 

Now...even ignoring geography, I would point out 10 or 15 interceptors is not exactly very useful against hmmm...2000 rockets if I remember correctly, if I am correct in thinking both USA and Russia limited to 2000 warheads each? IDK, they mighta scrapped it, so...

 

Plus, about Iran's nuclear/rocket capability...First, I don't trust this man...I shall call him the nuclear whore. Notice, he is beloved by Pakistanis everywhere. And Muslims around the world laud him and Pakistan for having the first 'Islamic bomb', and him giving it to them. Mr Khan now selling technology to rogue states if you remember, like Iran and NK? Yes. If there is one thing that worries more than this shield, its the fact the US has not seriously gone after Pakistan and this man.

 

Now as for the rockets that Iran won't have till at least 2015-2020...

 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...s/IRAN01257.xml

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/osborne012707.htm

 

This was when the cautious estimates were saying 2015 in the Defense Department, before this. After this, why do you think America is not even really sure now, but they know soon, Iran is gonna have ICBM capability, if it already doesn't have? Also, do not think Khan's network died just because of lack of him. Though China isn't helping Pakistan develop its rocketry/atomic bomb program, the countries manage to share a vast amount of info. Notice:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahab-3

 

Shared tech with North Korea, meaning they're profiting off of each other's work.

 

 

Look, not saying that perhaps Putin isn't worried/mad that the US is enroaching on old Warsaw Pact territory, but he is clearly relying on people to assume rockets take a direct path, and to make people think 10 rockets will actually make a difference again God knows how many? Just maybe for once, the Pentagon is telling the truth?

[Accele 0]

Putin is upset because the US is putting missiles on old Soviet territory. It's a political move, he is not fearful for his country's safety (any more than he was before), for obvious reasons which everyone has already pointed out. Even by the missile shield = offensive weapon in IR theory does not work, since, like everyone said, it would have to provide an effective counter to the Russians and it does not.

 

To bring it back to the original point, news out of Russia is fishy for a lot of reasons, but the people in command are not acting differently because they know we might be able to shoot down 10 of their missiles someday (if they decided to shoot at Europe).

[Rattuskid 0]

Putin is more upset the technology for a missile shield is available to the US and not to him moreso than location being a strategic threat.

 

The US military/political complex is using this as a saber rattling move in the ol' bloc* as muchso as they are using it as a questionable defense against Iranian agression. Especially considering the number one target for any operational Persian nuke would be a nation due West a good bit that starts with an 'I'.

 

A missile shield off the coast of Japan for NK would be a much easier to interpret message though, and it wouldn't have to even work to well, since the agressor's missiles tend to crash most of the time anyway.

 

*Which means in a week the nukes will have all the valuable metal stolen off of them and the husks left over will be graffitied with swastikas... just like everything else in those nations.

Edited May 14, 2007 by Rattuskid

[Feuersturm 0]

"prerogative and right to fly over international airspace to preserve the peace by flying reconnaissance missions".

-Bush Gov't

 

Kinda like Russia was doing?

[IconOfEvi 0]

Yes but if you get near someone's battlegroups/groups of watercraft involved in exercises...I assume they have a right to intercept and shoot you down?

 

And I doubt Russia was preserving the peace...sad that they weren't invited to the party if anything :lol:

[mastermind 0]

If it was a live fire exercise it was probably also at least partially for the safety of the Bear.