An Interesting Decision

[Sprafa]

The great cost and dubious feasibility of building successful missile detection and interception systems with 1970s technology, led to the ABM treaty of 1972, which restricted the deployment of missiles designed to shoot down each other's ICBMs. Under the ABM treaty and a 1974 revision agreed to by the Soviets and Americans, each country was allowed to deploy a single ABM system with only 100 interceptors to protect a single target. The Soviets deployed a system named Galosh, designed to protect Moscow. The U.S. deployed a system called Safeguard to defend ballistic missile sites at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, in 1975

 

[GiaOmerta]

More modern anti-missile defences exist currently. Anti-missile defences which use lasers are in the works as well.

I say the cost is worth it. Reduce the number of munitions and and increase the number of defences and safeguards. The truth is, we'll probaly never use these weapons (ICBMs)

 

[Raziaar]

Well, I simply just think Sprafa is trying yet another way to USA bash. He's pointing out that Russia used its system to protect moscow, while the USA used its to protect an airforce base.

I don't know much about that, but i'd love to see you try to link that somehow with bush like you want to

But anyways... America has MANY huge cities across its landscape, and i'm sure the decision to put the missile defense system which was likely known to not be that great, at an airforce base that carried ballistic missiles, was a good one. It certainly had a critical role as means to counter-strike any threats against the states... which would be far more effective than the protection of one single city if a war that could wipe out so many dozens/hundreds of cities broke out.

 

[jondy]

It's nice to see you pigeonholing so soon into the thread, Raziaar :cheers:

 

[seinfeldrules]

It was just to protect the leadership in Moscow. They only cared about themselves most likely.

 

[Raziaar]

It's nice to see you pigeonholing so soon into the thread, Raziaar :cheers:

My first two lines weren't serious to the discussion. The paragraph after those two was reflecting on my actual opinion on the matter.

 

[ALEXDJ]

It was just to protect the leadership in Moscow. They only cared about themselves most likely.

a huge part of russians live in moscow and near by

it's a huge, huge city

"There is not and will not be any defense against these missiles," [Ivanov] said, according to Interfax.

http://www.atsnn.com/story/124219.html

i can comfotably say, that if you take Moscow, you take the whole russia

 

[seinfeldrules]

i can comfotably say, that if you take Moscow, you take the whole russia

Didnt Napolean take Moscow?

 

[Tr0n]

I still say we shoulda went on with the star wars program.

 

[kirovman]

Didnt Napolean take Moscow?

Nope, he was able to enter it, more sucessfully than Hitler, but was forced to retreat soon after. I think the Russians used a tactic called 'scorched earth' (burning all the farm land and food stocks).

I think only Genghis Khan was able to control Moscow. The tactic scorched earth was probably a tactic inherited from the Mongol Warlords.

i can comfotably say, that if you take Moscow, you take the whole russia

If you're talking today, you'd probably control West of the Urals.

But there's no way of controlling the vastness of Russia unless you are the Russian government. It's too big for a foreign occupier. Taking Moscow does not automatically make you the governor of Vladivostock for example.

 

[GiaOmerta]

I still say we shoulda went on with the star wars program.

I've heard the term before but could you explain futher the Star Wars Program?

 

[Tr0n]

Well star wars is the un-offical name it's actually called:

Strategic Defense Initiative (link)

 

[CptStern]

the star wars program is a joke ...anything exploding in near earth orbit would fill the atmosphere with small pieces of debris ..effectively shutting down all space exporation as even a paint chip can punch a hole the size of a baseball in the side of the shuttle ...star wars ironically enough means the end of the space program

 

[Foxtrot]

The great cost and dubious feasibility of building successful missile detection and interception systems with 1970s technology, led to the ABM treaty of 1972, which restricted the deployment of missiles designed to shoot down each other's ICBMs. Under the ABM treaty and a 1974 revision agreed to by the Soviets and Americans, each country was allowed to deploy a single ABM system with only 100 interceptors to protect a single target. The Soviets deployed a system named Galosh, designed to protect Moscow. The U.S. deployed a system called Safeguard to defend ballistic missile sites at Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, in 1975

Obviously you don't understand tactics, here is a little scenario for you. The Soviets nuke the missle site, take out our long rangenuclear capabilities (I know, it is just an example) and now they are free to nuke us wherever they want. But, if they can't nuke they we can now respond, and that is called a detterent.

 

[GiaOmerta]

Gravity would pull down the remnants of the ICBM or target down to Earth. They wouldnt remain in space.

 

[CptStern]

yes they would

 

[ALEXDJ]

Didnt Napolean take Moscow?

we, burned it down, before he got to it, and then his army froze on the way back, hahah

 

[ALEXDJ]

But there's no way of controlling the vastness of Russia unless you are the Russian government. It's too big for a foreign occupier. Taking Moscow does not automatically make you the governor of Vladivostock for example.

you think russian gov. controlls all russia?

no way in hell

 

[ALEXDJ]

I think only Genghis Khan was able to control Moscow. The tactic scorched earth was probably a tactic inherited from the Mongol Warlords.
.

maybe, but we still defeated them, and stop them from going to western europ, if not for Russian people, God knows what would happen to the whole world, we might all be speaking Chineas or something

 

[seinfeldrules]

we, burned it down, before he got to it, and then his army froze on the way back, hahah

So he did take it.

And you may want to contain yourself when your mouse hovers over the reply button, 3 posts in a row is a little much.

 

[kirovman]

you think russian gov. controlls all russia?

no way in hell

Ok. So that reinforces my arguement against:
taking Moscow will mean you take all of Russia. Not so, if not even the government can control all of Russia - so how could a foreign power?

But it is true Russia is highly polarised towards Moscow. Economic growth is high in Moscow, whereas in most of the rest of Russia it is declining.

maybe, but we still defeated them, and stop them from going to western europ, if not for Russian people, God knows what would happen to the whole world, we might all be speaking Chineas or something

Eventually, but it was due to divisions in the Mongols, splitting into smaller an smaller hordes. They collapsed after a couple of hundred years, because they were good at war (the best known in history), but no good at administration.
You didn't stop them going to Western Europe, the news of the Khan's death shook them up and they focused on electing a new Khan rather than invasion.
Ghengis Khan died and during Kublai Khan's reign, the Mongols divided into hordes, stopping them from going further west (lost the organisation).
The horde controlling Russia was the Golden Horde.
The empire of the Golden Horde was finally broken up by Timur, a Turk, to form three Tartar khanates: Kazan, Astrakhan and the Crimea.

A lot of East Russian people are partially Mongolian by descent.

You could say the Mongols defeated themselves.

The divided Khanates were a shadow of their former land empire, stretching from Vietnam to Germany.
After the Mongol empire decayed, the Russians were free to conquer Siberia in 1600s, about 200-300 years after the Mongol Empire.