View Full Version : Russions warn: military response to US missile shield in Europe is a possiblility
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Originally published 02:55 p.m., August 26, 2008, updated 02:34 p.m., August 26, 2008
MOSCOW (AP) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warns that his country may offer a military response to a U.S. missile shield in Europe.
Medvedev says that the deployment of an anti-missile system close to Russian borders "will of course create additional tensions."
"We will have to react somehow, to react, of course, in a military way," Medvedev was quoted as saying Tuesday by the RIA-Novosti news agency.
Russian officials have already warned of a military response to the U.S. plans, but the statement by the Russian leader was likely to further aggravate already tense relations with the West. The comments come after Medvedev recognized two Georgian regions as independent nations, prompting criticism from the U.S. and Europe.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
MOSCOW (AP) _ Russia formally recognized the breakaway Georgian territories at the heart of its war with Georgia on Tuesday, drawing immediate condemnation from the West as the United States dispatched a military ship bearing aid to a port city still patrolled by Russian troops.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev was unapologetic about his decision and said he did not fear a Cold War. He said Georgia forced Russia's hand by launching an attack targeting South Ossetia on Aug. 7 in an apparent bid to seize control of the breakaway region.
In response, Russian tanks and troops drove deep into the U.S. ally's territory in a five-day war that Moscow saw as a justified response to a military threat in its backyard and the West viewed as a repeat of Soviet-style intervention in its vassal states.
"This is not an easy choice but this is the only chance to save people's lives," Medvedev said Tuesday in a televised address a day after Russia's Kremlin-controlled parliament voted unanimously to support the diplomatic recognition.
The U.S. was taken surprise by the speed of the Russian response on recognition and escalated it by having Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice threaten a U.N. Security Council veto should Russia ask for international recognition of its move.
(story continues at the link)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/26/russia-issues-new-warning-over-us-missile-shield/
this missile shield bull**** we're pulling over there is outrageous.
how's this any different than the cuban missile "crisis"?
brickboy240 08-26-2008, 15:12 Do you mean Russians?
- brickboy240
This is a test to decide how things are gonna be.
We'll see how it turns out.
I hope we show some backbone.
Clyde in CO 08-26-2008, 15:28 all we need to do is wait until the wind is blowing east then drop bombs on chernobyl.
GlocksForGoons 08-26-2008, 15:31 They will offer up their military response and we will adamantly decline.
this missile shield bull**** we're pulling over there is outrageous.
how's this any different than the cuban missile "crisis"?
Well, the Cuban missile crisis was about nuclear-armed MRBMs whose only role is an offensive weapon.
Defensive missiles on the other hand, are not nuclear and have a defensive mission to shoot down missiles.
Big difference.
franklin 08-26-2008, 15:51 Good thing the Russians don't make cigars and I don't like Vodka.
Sugarfree 08-26-2008, 15:53 this missile shield bull**** we're pulling over there is outrageous.
how's this any different than the cuban missile "crisis"?
There are several eastern European countries that want/will buy this equipment. They would develop it themselves if they could.
franklin 08-26-2008, 16:00 this missile shield bull**** we're pulling over there is outrageous.
how's this any different than the cuban missile "crisis"?
I think it's very different... on many levels. I do think Bush expected this response from the Russians and the Republicans welcome the response as it will be a key debate point in who to choose as the next POTUS playing on Obama's lack of international experience.
Do you mean Russians?
- brickboy240
Why no, I meant "Russions".
They're the inhabitants of the planet Russio, 4th planet of the star Ruchbah.
They can be a belligerent bunch of butt-heads.
Thank you for asking though.
NashvilleGlock 08-26-2008, 16:11 This whole thing has nothing to do with the actual missile shield, it has to do with old school Russian saber rattling. The presence of 10 missiles (Non nuclear intercepting) would not threaten Russia in the least. Just one MERV and they would all be gone. This whole shield just an excuse to flex their E-Peen and release press statements. This would however prevent rogue nations from launching crappy (example Shiab) missiles in the 1 to 2 range.
This is a test, a test John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagen passed. I just hope the next President has the balls to do the same, I honestly don't think even Bush does. Russia is testing our resolve and thus far it's looking pretty sweet for them.
NEWSFLASH: Russia is NOT our friend and they need to understand we are ready and willing to give them a nice warm mushroom on the horizon.
chowchow 08-26-2008, 16:40 Expect to see me vote for Independent Party. To hell with the two parties. They all sound the same to me.
Clyde in CO 08-26-2008, 16:42 Expect to see me vote for Independent Party. To hell with the two parties. They all sound the same to me.
if enough people think like you we'll have obama as our next president.
franklin 08-26-2008, 16:46 Expect to see me vote for Independent Party. To hell with the two parties. They all sound the same to me.
I changed from a registered R to I, however, I don't know of an I running for POTUS.
"The USA responded by recognizing Chechnia", sources near the State Department commented. "We'd have done it earlier, but we didn't know another Georgia existed until BBC broke the news of the invasion. When we got our new maps in from Amazon.com one of the old guys pointed out some of the other countries down there. We immediately recognized Chechnia as the last place to kick Russian ass."
NATO's European countries have filed a motion for African Peacekeepers to be deployed to the area, and the Organization of African States has agreed to go along with this provided looting and rape priviledges are maintained as they are in other countries. "Even though the Russians are dragging home anything they can, we feel the compensation would be adiwuate for our personnel.", an OAS Secretary responded. "Our only fear is that the Olympic Commitee may get their first, and then there would be nothing left of value."
Russia has been building new and better nuclear missiles since the late 90's all the while the United States stockpile is aging. Maybe this is why the US wants a missile defense shield near Russia.
I saved this article from a few years ago off of Yahoo news.
-------------------------------------
Russia Developing New Nuclear Missile
MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia is developing a new form of nuclear missile unlike those held by other countries, news agencies reported. Speaking at a meeting of the Armed Forces' leadership, Putin reportedly said that Russia is researching and successfully testing new nuclear missile systems. "I am sure that ... they will be put in service within the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have," Putin was quoted as saying by the ITAR-Tass news agency. Putin reportedly said: "International terrorism is one of the major threats for Russia. We understand as soon as we ignore such components of our defense as a nuclear and missile shield, other threats may occur." No details were immediately available, but Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said earlier this month that Russia expected to test-fire a mobile version of its Topol-M ballistic missile this year and that production of the new weapon could be commissioned in 2005. News reports have also said Russia is believed to be developing a next-generation heavy nuclear missile that could carry up to 10 nuclear warheads weighing a total of 4.4 tons, compared with the Topol-M's 1.32-ton combat payload. Topol-Ms have been deployed in silos since 1998. The missiles have a range of about 6,000 miles and reportedly can maneuver in ways that are difficult to detect. Earlier this year, a senior Defense Ministry official was quoted as telling news agencies that Russia had developed a weapon that could make the United States' proposed missile-defense system useless. Details were not given, but military analysts said the claimed new weapon could be a hypersonic cruise missile or maneuverable ballistic missile warheads.
Well, the Cuban missile crisis was about nuclear-armed MRBMs whose only role is an offensive weapon.
Defensive missiles on the other hand, are not nuclear and have a defensive mission to shoot down missiles.
Big difference.
you can tell yourself that, but you can't convince your once enemy that those silos can't turn offensive, or hide a more sinister purpose. If I were Russia, this would be an act of war.
let's put it this way, if the Russians did the same thing in Mexico or Canada (al la; cuban missile crisis) it'd be a national security concern, regardless of their stated intent.
it's a stupid thing to do for various reasons, but most importantly, these missiles can be located elsewhere for a fraction of the monetary and political cost, and they'd be just as effective.
it's the dumbest idea we've hatched in a long long looong time.
hardballing 08-26-2008, 17:58 you can tell yourself that, but you can't convince your once enemy that those silos can't turn offensive, or hide a more sinister purpose. If I were Russia, this would be an act of war.
let's put it this way, if the Russians did the same thing in Mexico or Canada (al la; cuban missile crisis) it'd be a national security concern, regardless of their stated intent.
it's a stupid thing to do for various reasons, but most importantly, these missiles can be located elsewhere for a fraction of the monetary and political cost, and they'd be just as effective.
it's the dumbest idea we've hatched in a long long looong time.
So your solution to Soviet (there, I said it) aggression is....?
it's the dumbest idea we've hatched in a long long looong time.
Well, since we didn't "hatch it" what's that say?
you can tell yourself that, but you can't convince your once enemy that those silos can't turn offensive, or hide a more sinister purpose. If I were Russia, this would be an act of war.
Let's look at this in detail:
a) There are no silos. THAAD batteries consist of 3 launch vehicles and a command vehicle.
b) THAAD is an anti-missle system. It is not ballistic. It cannot carry nukes. There is no way to change that.
c) If Mexico or Canada were military allies of Russia, and they contracted for such a weapons system under the provisions of their charter, it would be business as usual.
The simple fact is that Russia is not the target for these systems, and they know that. They have more missiles than thses batteries can handle. They are being deployed (at the request of NATO nations who do not have their capability) to neutrilize threats from the Middle East (specifically Iran and Syria both of whom have missles theoretically capable of striking NATO partners).
What Russia objects to is the loss of their Empire, and the fact that such countries still have bad feelings towards the Russians (who are trying hard to increase their sphere of influance). They really want those counties back, and their politically stupid move into Georgia is going to pay off in increased paranoia and closer relations with the West on the part of those countries.
Russia has been building new and better nuclear missiles since the late 90's
MAJOR BS!
The Russians in the 1990's were bankrupt. They lost 80% of their Navy because it rusted away from lack of maintenance. Their ground forces lost over 50% of it's personnel and equipment. The Air Force is just now managing to get a dozen PROPELLER DRIVEN aircraft back on what used to be a normal, routine, flight plan.
According to the analyists (RAND, etc) it will still be a few more years before Russian ICBM forces are back to the readiness levels they had two decades ago. Back then, it was believed that about 70 percent of Russian ICBMs would hit their targets if launched. That was reduced by more than half during the 1990s.
I don't care how much money they have it isn't enough! You cannot keep high tech stuff working without maintenance (and Russian tech needs LOTS more maint.) and personnel, neither of which they have or have spent time training up.
Russia's forces are low tech, and at least a generation behind the US. That's what scares them. Any US combat BDE could have defeated the invasion of Georgia (a DIV of Russians). And every US combat unit now has a core of personnel who've seen combat; a major decider in any engagement.
Watch for "advisors" going to more ex-USSR satellite countries, and them providing more forces for Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians should fear that more than any AA Battery.
unit1069 08-26-2008, 18:45 When President Reagan originally offered to share missile defense with the Soviets the commies refused. The US offered a few years ago to house the ABM radar at a Russian site with the Russians able to monitor everything. The offer was to reassure Russia that the missile shield is defensive only. Russia refused.
The Eastern European nations who are finally free of Moscow's rule have been very eager to join NATO for fear that Russia would once again return to Soviet-style dictatorship. Looks like the Eastern Europeans know a whole lot more about Russia and their leaders than most of the rest of us.
hardballing 08-26-2008, 18:55 So your solution to Soviet (there, I said it) agression is....?
Anyone? Anyone?
Beuller (elo) ? Beuller (elo) ?
fnfalman 08-26-2008, 18:55 Did Reagan back down when the Soviets got all up in arms about the Pershing missiles being deployed in Germany?
I wonder how W. would handle this Soviet's blatant saber rattling? Would he do some saber rattling and gunboat diplomacy back at the Russian Bear or would he kowtow to the Russkies?
hardballing 08-26-2008, 18:57 Did Reagan back down when the Soviets got all up in arms about the Pershing missiles being deployed in Germany?
I wonder how W. would handle this Soviet's blatant saber rattling? Would he do some saber rattling and gunboat diplomacy back at the Russian Bear or would he kowtow to the Russkies?
Hey Dude, don't you know that Reagan didn't do squat regarding the Soviets.
It was the "whole world standing as one". At least in Obamaspeak it was.
:)
Well, since we didn't "hatch it" what's that say?
Let's look at this in detail:
a) There are no silos. THAAD batteries consist of 3 launch vehicles and a command vehicle.
b) THAAD is an anti-missle system. It is not ballistic. It cannot carry nukes. There is no way to change that.
c) If Mexico or Canada were military allies of Russia, and they contracted for such a weapons system under the provisions of their charter, it would be business as usual.
The simple fact is that Russia is not the target for these systems, and they know that..
I'll be the first to admit ignorance in regard to missile systems. But, by silo, by truck, or by russians holding tubes, we'd see it as an act of aggression if russia put a missile system of any kind on our continent. Your "c" wouldn't be business as usual.
additionally, if we didn't hatch it, then we shouldn't be hosting it and building it.. let the other NATO countries do something for once. instead of treating them as dependents we need to start holding them accountable as equal partners in world issues. hence OUR hatched idea.
However, I was enlighted by your post.. specifically that we asked russia to host these missiles and they declined. interesting. thanks for posting
Anyone? Anyone?
Beuller (elo) ? Beuller (elo) ?
what soviet aggression would you be referring to?
y
it's the dumbest idea we've hatched in a long long looong time.
Yes, defending against nuclear-armed missiles is such a dumb idea. :upeyes:
Better to just let them hit us. :upeyes:
You do know that the Russians have the best AND most heavily deployed missile defenses in the world, don't you? Was it stupid of them to make them?
PAGunner 08-26-2008, 19:29 Well, since we didn't "hatch it" what's that say?
Let's look at this in detail:
a) There are no silos. THAAD batteries consist of 3 launch vehicles and a command vehicle.
b) THAAD is an anti-missle system. It is not ballistic. It cannot carry nukes. There is no way to change that.
c) If Mexico or Canada were military allies of Russia, and they contracted for such a weapons system under the provisions of their charter, it would be business as usual.
The simple fact is that Russia is not the target for these systems, and they know that. They have more missiles than thses batteries can handle. They are being deployed (at the request of NATO nations who do not have their capability) to neutrilize threats from the Middle East (specifically Iran and Syria both of whom have missles theoretically capable of striking NATO partners).
What Russia objects to is the loss of their Empire, and the fact that such countries still have bad feelings towards the Russians (who are trying hard to increase their sphere of influance). They really want those counties back, and their politically stupid move into Georgia is going to pay off in increased paranoia and closer relations with the West on the part of those countries.
MAJOR BS!
The Russians in the 1990's were bankrupt. They lost 80% of their Navy because it rusted away from lack of maintenance. Their ground forces lost over 50% of it's personnel and equipment. The Air Force is just now managing to get a dozen PROPELLER DRIVEN aircraft back on what used to be a normal, routine, flight plan.
According to the analyists (RAND, etc) it will still be a few more years before Russian ICBM forces are back to the readiness levels they had two decades ago. Back then, it was believed that about 70 percent of Russian ICBMs would hit their targets if launched. That was reduced by more than half during the 1990s.
I don't care how much money they have it isn't enough! You cannot keep high tech stuff working without maintenance (and Russian tech needs LOTS more maint.) and personnel, neither of which they have or have spent time training up.
Russia's forces are low tech, and at least a generation behind the US. That's what scares them. Any US combat BDE could have defeated the invasion of Georgia (a DIV of Russians). And every US combat unit now has a core of personnel who've seen combat; a major decider in any engagement.
Watch for "advisors" going to more ex-USSR satellite countries, and them providing more forces for Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians should fear that more than any AA Battery.
+1, Pretty much everything I wanted to say, but better written, and I didn't have the time.
jdavionic 08-26-2008, 19:54 Russia, more specifically Putin, is taking advantage of the ME distraction. Putin is clever, egotistical, and appears to be pushing Russia toward the stature that he believes it deserves.
Not sure what his next move would be in this chess match. While I think he does not want a direct conflict with the US, I do think he wants to assert his power. I don't envision him as the type to throw out empty threats. A "military response" offers many options that will still allow him to beat on his chest and ultimately save face without directly confronting the US. My best guess is that he'll make it obvious that nukes are being re-targeted at Poland and the Ukraine. But I think that's as far as he'll take it. I doubt he'd be so bold and foolish as to attack US military personnel during the deployment of the THAAD. Even the madman Brezchnev was not so crazy as to want a war with the US. And Putin appears to be much sharper than Brezchnev.
TenMillimeter 08-26-2008, 21:10 if enough people think like you we'll have obama as our next president.
Uh, no. If ENOUGH people thought like him and quit voting for the devil we know, or the lesser of two evils, we'd have a REAL president.
Russia, more specifically Putin, is taking advantage of the ME distraction.
With the greatest portion of Russia's hard-currency income coming from oil and gas sales, they have every incentive to see continuous Middle-East conflict.
More Middle-East conflict = higher oil price = more income for the Kremlin gang.
That missile shield is a complete waste of BILLION$. The only time it has worked is in completely contrived scenarios (i.e. perfect conditions, all systems checked over to the same degree as an Apollo moon shot, no decoys, no attempt at shielding the target vehicle, etc.).
Sure it can be improved; just apply more (of our) money. But the thing is, it'll never offer 100% protection. And isn't 100% protection the justification used to build it?
Just reiterate the doctrines that got us through the Cold War unscathed: deterrence and massive retaliation. We should announce to the world that we WILL completely incinerate every square inch of any country that launches missiles at us, and we'll do it reflexively in less than an hour after we're attacked. That way there'll be no time for the preemptive lib-tard whining about "two wrongs won't make a right," and "what about all of the innocent civilians over there who we'll kill?"
I say "Screw 'em. If WE lose a city, then YOU lose all of your cities." Word.
There. Billion$ saved.
You wanna spend Billion$ to guard against a REAL nuclear threat? Start trying to prevent an atom bomb from being anonymously placed in a cargo ship that pulls into the Port of New York and is detonated.
Another cold war..only difference is Russia will be the capitalists, and we the US will be the communists...go figure..
striker6126 08-27-2008, 00:01 Uh, no. If ENOUGH people thought like him and quit voting for the devil we know, or the lesser of two evils, we'd have a REAL president.
I agree , however we all know that will never happen . As i stated in another thread a few days ago . It was the people that voted for Ross Perot that gave us Clinton.
Did Reagan back down when the Soviets got all up in arms about the Pershing missiles being deployed in Germany?
I wonder how W. would handle this Soviet's blatant saber rattling? Would he do some saber rattling and gunboat diplomacy back at the Russian Bear or would he kowtow to the Russkies?
Well, when we wanted to shoot down our own spy satillite did Putin say he would veiw that as an act of US aggression, blah, blah, etc. didn't Bush basicly say we're gonna do it weather you like it or not?
That missile shield is a complete waste of BILLION$.
Once agian we have someone who cannot comprehend the difference between THAADS and StarWars. THAADS works. It's a modified Patriot type system, and those proved themselves on SCUDs over a decade ago. (Not bad for an AA system, not an anti-missile system). THAADS is built as an anti-ballistic missile system. It is mobile, and covers a huge area.
Star Wars (the pet "waste" program of people who can't find anything else better to do with their time) is one of the better ideas to stay alive through the past two decades. Originally designed to prevent ballistic missile attacks on the USA, it has mutated quite a bit (SDI, etc). Not the least because the USSR is no longer, but more importantly because ballistic missiles are now in the hands of rogue regimes.
Missile defense is a diplomatic program for promoting (and a military tool for protecting) the wealth-producing global system.
According to current strategic doctrine missile defense is one of three "centerpieces" for a new collective defense, along with counter-terror cooperation and anti-proliferation regimens for weapons of mass destruction.
It's also cheap insurance. Diplomats, generals and spies make mistakes. Unlike most of the rest of us, when they make mistakes the costs are huge. The Washington Times quotes the Bush administration's new National Security Presidential Directive 23 as saying "... history teaches that, despite our best efforts, there will be military surprises, failures of diplomacy, intelligence and deterrence. Missile defenses help provide protection against such events."
As for the system requiring "perfect" conditions to work, I invite you to re-visit the shooting down of the satillite last year. The timing and conditions were not manipulated, and not only did the system work just as it was supposed to, but NO other nation could have done it. And just look at the news: nations that are currently aggressive quickly condemned the action and asked to have the system "outlawed". Lots of other countries immediately asked to have one.
Yes, it took some time to set it up. But it shouldn't have. If Bill Clinton had continued the work Reagan started it would have been in place, and the proliferation of ballistic missile systems would most likely be considerably diminished (because rogue nations try to avoid spending money on systems that won't get the results they require.)
It's a modified Patriot type system, and those proved themselves on SCUDs over a decade ago. (Not bad for an AA system, not an anti-missile system).
Is that Kool-Aide cherry-flavored, or grape? I heard the Patriot/SCUD intercepts were few and far between. But I'll be the first to admit that I haven't deeply researched the issue. Maybe you have.
Fiery Red XIII 08-27-2008, 00:46 I agree , however we all know that will never happen . As i stated in another thread a few days ago . It was the people that voted for Ross Perot that gave us Clinton.
At some point (I HOPE)...people will learn.
Red
I agree , however we all know that will never happen . As i stated in another thread a few days ago . It was the people that voted for Ross Perot that gave us Clinton.
This is just propaganda from both parties attempting to get everyone to never vote 3rd party. The 2 parties will do anything to keep the 2 party system in effect because then they keep all the power. Choosing a "lesser of two evils" is just bs and I refuse to do it. I am voting for whom I want to be president and your silly calls of "oh you will lose us the election" mean nothing to me.
As far the missile system. If we could just mind our own damn business like the founding fathers intended we wouldn't be in this mess. Now THAT, is something that will NEVER happen. It just doesn't make politicians enough money to mind our own business.
That missile shield is a complete waste of BILLION$. The only time it has worked is in completely contrived scenarios (i.e. perfect conditions, all systems checked over to the same degree as an Apollo moon shot, no decoys, no attempt at shielding the target vehicle, etc.).
Yes, they did that in system testing and development.
It hasn't been used in operational service yet, so your comment is premature.
I heard the Patriot/SCUD intercepts were few and far between.
You heard wrong.
And, as noted, Patriot was designed to bring down aircraft. It totally scared people with it's anti-Scud (and other missiles) capabilities.
As noted, it is the premier system in the world today. Ask the Arabs how they feel about the Israelis having it. Ask the Russians why it's such a big deal that their ex-satillites get it. Patriot negates a large portion of the long range missile threat as well as their aircraft. THAADs is better.
wprebeck 08-27-2008, 11:01 This is just propaganda from both parties attempting to get everyone to never vote 3rd party. The 2 parties will do anything to keep the 2 party system in effect because then they keep all the power. Choosing a "lesser of two evils" is just bs and I refuse to do it. I am voting for whom I want to be president and your silly calls of "oh you will lose us the election" mean nothing to me.
As far the missile system. If we could just mind our own damn business like the founding fathers intended we wouldn't be in this mess. Now THAT, is something that will NEVER happen. It just doesn't make politicians enough money to mind our own business.
Yes, because isolationism works great.
Especially when other countries don't follow the same, and intrude on your strategic interests. Much as folks like you want it to be, we don't exist in a vacuum. The U.S. can't just bury it's head in the sand, and say "Hey, we don't care about what goes on in the rest of the world; we're just gonna worry about us over here"
And it's not propaganda if it's the truth, in regards to your other comment. The U.S. does not, and likely will NEVER, have a viable third party. The two existing parties have entirely too much money that third party candidates can't hope to match. So, you voting for another guy, instead of McCain WILL help to give Obama the White House.
But hey, you voted for who you wanted, and made your point to the rest of us, right. :upeyes: I'm still trying to figure out who GOT it.
Back on topic -
Russia doesn't want any part of us. They didn't want it 20 years ago, and they sure as hell don't want any now. We bankrupted them once, if they try this stupid military nonsense they're doing now, a return to the Cold War won't hurt anybody over here. Matter of fact, the defense contractors will love it. Might even help the economy, with all kinds of new jobs, and expanding the military again. Yes, that would take increased taxes, but perhaps we could quit funding stupid programs like welfare to pay for it..(I know...I'm dreaming on that one)
You heard wrong.
And, as noted, Patriot was designed to bring down aircraft. It totally scared people with it's anti-Scud (and other missiles) capabilities.
As noted, it is the premier system in the world today. Ask the Arabs how they feel about the Israelis having it. Ask the Russians why it's such a big deal that their ex-satillites get it. Patriot negates a large portion of the long range missile threat as well as their aircraft. THAADs is better.
Well, performance in Desert Storm was not great. Several reports are available that speak to it.
This report speaks to why the Patriot missed the SCUD that hit the warehouse in Dhahran and killed 28 soldiers.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm
And these reports outline the success rates of the Patriot in general.
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992_h/h920407h.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/congress/1992_r/patriot.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1992_h/h920407p.htm
I would also note that the Patriot has yet to down an enemy aircraft. It has, however, shot down 2 friendly fighters and nearly shot down another.
Has the system gotten better since Desert Storm? Yes. Does it still have problems? Yes.
slewfoot 08-27-2008, 15:44 Is that Kool-Aide cherry-flavored, or grape? I heard the Patriot/SCUD intercepts were few and far between. But I'll be the first to admit that I haven't deeply researched the issue. Maybe you have.
I do remember reading where the Israeli's thought the Patriot system was flawed.
I have no idea how the system has been upgraded but the Patriot really didn't live up to expectation on it's first deployment.
hill billy 08-27-2008, 15:48 Not to worry folks, Mr. Obama will approach the Russians without any pre-conditions. That's the best way, right? Right?
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
|  Sponsored Links:
|