Replies

The nature of Russia and China is that they have formed an alliance in July of 2001 and again this year promising to oppose the United States.

Uh-huh. Words on a piece of paper. Just like the German-Soviet Pact of 1939.

Geopolitics 101: Neighboring countries are enemies.

China has irredentist claims on Siberia.

Russia will probably regret that treaty, unless China collapses sooner than later.

In the same summit that is the topic of this thread putin said Russia had "at her disposal a considerable... stockpile of heavy ground-launched strategic missiles...".

As does the United States.

"Their combat characteristics, including the surmounting of any systems of anti-missile defences, are unrivalled," he said.

THAT part is pure BS, because NOBODY has conducted a live-fire test of a nuclear missile since 1962--and nobody has EVER fired one under combat conditions (i.e., without a lot of factory technicians doing a lot of prelaunch maintenance to make sure that everything will work).

You may not understand this...but the folks in charge do, and they understand that ICBMs are far less useful as combat weapons than one would think.

Now... who, besides Russia herself, has (or will have) a ballistic missile defense?

The United States--but that one's not going to be any sort of system that can handle a full-fledged strike by the likely opposition. Neither, BTW, is Russia's (which only protects Moscow).

Putin is pointing out that Russia can destroy the US. We can more than destroy Russia.

I had assumed you already had the facts regarding the nature of Russia, China, and their satellite allies (including Iraq, DPRK, Iran, Syria, and others) each having been (or previously) openly hostile to the United States.

Iraq is no longer an ally of Russia. Iran is not anyone's ally (indeed, they are openly aiding Islamists operating in Chechnya and Western China, to the extreme discomfort of Russia and China). The DPRK is not your father's DPRK--any war on the Korean peninsula will turn into a question of "Gosh, should we let the ROKs go all the way to the Yalu or not?"

One can't dispute that if they are informed.

Good, then quit disputing, as you obviously AREN'T informed.

In the 1960s and 1970s NATO used a policy of "FLEXIBLE RESPONSE" if I recall correctly-- not preemption.

Against a massive Soviet invasion, "Flexible Response" was really a promise to use tactical nuclear weapons early and often.

First, yes... there have been several live-fire tests of ICBMs since the 1960's. SEVERAL. When you say live fire, you must mean a live warhead launched thousands of miles. Well, as everyone would surely know, systems are tested in pieces. There have been hundreds of non-nuclear ICBM tests over the last decade. These tests are meant to determine ways in which to deter enemy radar and to trick infrared systems into mistaking dummy warheads for real ones. These tests are ongoing in Russia who have developed the most advanced systems in the world and are deploying them as we speak.

As for nuclear testing-- the U.S. conducted its last test in September of 1993 and Russia's last was in October 1990.

Your assertion that "folks in charge" consider nuclear weapons as "less useful in combat" is actually quite funny. Nuclear weapons are considered strategic weapons and Russian military doctrine considers them VERY useful as a little research would point out.

Okay.. you stated an opinion about NMD. You stated in such a way as to indicate you are informed about it.

... exactly how and why is it inadequate? You must have some understanding about the science of KKV technology to draw an opinion. Any ideas about the specific plans for deploying the system world wide? How does the system deal with dummy warheads?