Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 143

Thread: Russia Tells Norway To Keep Aegis BMD System off Vessels

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
    So you're agreeing that Russia is just pissed because Norway may get the ability to stop their nukes reaching it targets and enabling NATOs to reach you. Nice
    No, Russia is pissed b'coz it's means spend more money to restore nuclear balance. Read preamble to the New START Treaty.
    Guided by the principle of indivisible security and
    convinced that measures for the reduction and limitation of
    strategic offensive arms and the other obligations set forth
    in this Treaty will enhance predictability and stability, and
    thus the security of both Parties
    Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between
    strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that
    this interrelationship will become more important as strategic
    nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive
    arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the
    strategic offensive arms of the Parties,
    NATO country making silly steps against sense of treaty, undermining the agreement and forcing Russia out of it when the number and location of the ABM reach the critical point. Russia will be still good with it. They just deploy more un-deployed now nukes, that's all.

  2. #62
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    720

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DasVivo View Post
    Firstly I think the SAM network could be argued to offset Airpower differences (which is a different ball game still to simply that of nuclear primacy which in turn has far bigger stakes)

    Secondly those SAMs are infact the shield to Russias sword for sure, They would be there to help blunt and absorb attacks, protecting the offensive swords which can attack, or in the event of a preemptive assault you could argue that such defenses allow one to absorb whatever elements of the enemy survive your offensive... I see no difference in this sword/shield for any player really

    The only difference I see to this is that:

    A) There was a treaty regarding this in the past that one player pulled out from, I believe in doing so and fielding such systems you risk yet another unnecessary competition/dimension..

    B) Russia offered the US the use of its radar facilities in Azerbaijan and put on the table a truely combined Missile Defence System of the US and Russia (primarily) designed to protect the same areas the US and Co are now trying to protect, in doing so it would have allowed likely the use of US and Russian Systems, would have taken away this source of irritation to Russia (and subsequently discord between US/Russia) and it might have made Russia more trusting.. Instead the US went towards a system which allowed Russia simply to send around attaches to inspect US/NATO Missile Defence sites and left Moscow more or less on the outside... Personally I think this was a silly choice on many different levels to what I can tell for the following reasons:

    *both as it means the US/NATO has to fork out money for entirely new systems instead of using some already existing infrastructure
    *run into Russian suspicions/opposition to a shield which it is not so much a part of

    I admit I could be wrong on certain factors involved, but that is how I have come to understand things and hence my view
    Not to troll your country, but..... Russia needs to grow some balls. And realize it cant clinge to influence and power through the military dimension alone. It has to accept its loss of status ever since the USSR collapsed and move on. The whole we still have influence because we can threaten you with our military capabilities is getting kinda lame without the economic might to back up that saber rattling.... Its so Cold War like, except Russia's a shell of what it use to be in the international power game, with the world being much more multi polar and all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric79 View Post
    Really Russia - why not joining NATO and stop your anxiety over Aegis missiles. You do have your own comparable missiles and together will make a fearsome deterrent against ANY rogue state attempts to launch missiles in order to provoke and start WW3. Norway is a member of NATO and can themselevs decide what to employ, they may even buy missiles from Russia to do the task.
    Like your engrish. Russia's asked to do so, but NATO states didnt believe it. They asked us to disband NATO and form a new defense framework once the USSR collapsed. So that would never work. They dont trust NATO and NATO doesnt trust them.

  3. #63
    Senior Member shuredgefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Teegeeack-awaiting the triumphal return of Mighty Xenu
    Posts
    1,709

    Default

    Norway could just install the Aegis BMD software and SM-3 missiles on the sly. Hey, the ships LOOK the same from the outside installed or not.

    Everyone's happy!

  4. #64
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    2,251

    Default

    I was surprised to hear that we could fit a BMD system on our Nansen ships -- I did not know that!

    There are 3 types of MK41 and not all of them can fit SM-3 missiles.... My previous understanding was that the Nansen MK41 was too small to accept an SM-3. OTOH that may still be correct; they do have only 1 8-cell MK41 each but space to add some more cells. Perhaps there is sufficient space to add SM-3 capable MK41s?

    Anyway this is all highly theoretical, it's not going to happen. The navy budget is extremely limited, we can barely afford to operate the current Nansen.

  5. #65
    Senior Member archibald harry tuttle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Forsaken USA territory
    Posts
    1,273

    Default

    For starters your main argument is flawed. A treaty is an agreement and thus one party is not just telling another what they can or can not have, they negociate. After the implementation of a treaty all they can do is ask the other parties to observe what was agreed upon and not more.

    Bad examples:
    1- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Naval_Treaty - Never worked, check history.

    2- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty B.S. Both countries worked in space based nuclear platforms betting on the treaty to buy time over the developments of the other. Also notice Iran did not ratify it thus they legally can deploy nuclear weapons in space, how good is that?

    3- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ba...Missile_Treaty - Did not prevent Moscow from having ABM systems, the treaty is as useless as the Washington Naval Treaty.

    4- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...rces_in_Europe - One of the parties ceased to exist thus the treaty is null.

    5- http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/pniglance Duh, Unilateral pledges.

    And you forgot the best: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versaille - See point 1

    Conclusion: One country can not tell another they can't have this or that unless they have leverage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Leaper View Post
    So you're saying that just bacuase somebody choose to wear body armor to protect him from being shot, you automatically have to aim a gun at him?
    Sure like logic has any weight in politics.


    Quote Originally Posted by szr View Post
    Imaginary "exchange." Russian nukes have been "pointed" at Norway for decades. Abstaining from the adoption of one weapon system won't win the removal of locations in Norway from Russia's strategic target rolls.
    Sure like facts have any weight in politics.


    Quote Originally Posted by LineDoggie View Post
    So this boils down to Russia saying: you cannot be allowed to have system to defend yourself from us attacking you, or else.

    Looks like Nikolai Makarov is taking advice from Hector Timerman.
    Last edited by archibald harry tuttle; 02-23-2012 at 04:00 AM. Reason: Damned typos.

  6. #66
    Senior Member DasVivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Computer
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archibald harry tuttle View Post
    [3- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ba...Missile_Treaty - Did not prevent Moscow from having ABM systems, the treaty is as useless as the Washington Naval Treaty.
    I was under the impression that

    In the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems the United States and the Soviet Union agree that each may have only two ABM deployment areas, so restricted and so located that they cannot provide a nationwide ABM defense or become the basis for developing one
    So of course it didn't stop Moscow from having one given that well it was the designated City for the USSR

    As to your point about treaties in general? I do not get it.... Are you trying to suggest that treaties only matter so far as one can enforce it? Arguebly this is true, if you're powerful enough to break every treaty when suited to you then sure you can likely do so, but what difference does that make to the fact that if one is part of a treaty they tend to be somewhat expected to stick by it?
    Infact I am not sure at all what you were trying to say to Artjomh.. As I think he was simply suggesting that Treaties can and do exist which place restrictions on deployed weapon systems for the signitories...

    After the implementation of a treaty all they can do is ask the other parties to observe what was agreed upon and not more.
    If one doesn't follow their treaty obligations then obviously its damaging to their credibility but regardless, are you simply trying to suggest that Russia cannot legally expect Norway to place these Missiles on their ships? Because I don't think anyone was suggesting that...

    Russia can ask Norway to keep BMD systems off
    Russia can TELL Norway to keep BMD systems off
    Regardless which the choice is up to the Norwegians themselves to listen to, both have different ramifications for the parties involved..

  7. #67
    Senior Member DasVivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Computer
    Posts
    2,934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bravosixniner View Post
    Not to troll your country, but..... Russia needs to grow some balls. And realize it cant clinge to influence and power through the military dimension alone. It has to accept its loss of status ever since the USSR collapsed and move on. The whole we still have influence because we can threaten you with our military capabilities is getting kinda lame without the economic might to back up that saber rattling.... Its so Cold War like, except Russia's a shell of what it use to be in the international power game, with the world being much more multi polar and all.
    Regardless my Country, Russia like the US etc has certain interests and both play to get their interests served.. Add on top of it the fact that every person, every country has its history and Russias has been a particulary bloody one its to be somewhat expected that Russia will be careful with any suspicious movements in its neighborhood.. Russia realises that military influence is not the only form that exists and of course tries to diversify, but coming out of the 1990s and having many others who are brought up to look upon Russia negatively tends to reduce some of these..
    As to it being 'lame' well what does it matter? It works or it doesn't.. If it doesn't work then well you do not need to worry about it as Russia will be inconsequential to you, if it does continue to work then well either work out how not to have to deal with it or overcome it.. (Tip the former is probably easier ) Its Economic Muscle has increased dramatically since those dark days, its just a question of taking the next leaps and bounds now

    As to the world being much more multi polar? That tends to benefit Russia more I'd argue, given Russias limited population, the suspicions that can exist of other traditional powers and the slightly reduced power the US has as its traditional opposition of late..

    Regardless, this is about these Aegis Systems, I'd be curious to hear more from actual Norwegians about their views on the issue seeing as its their ships etc

  8. #68
    Senior Member Xaito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    28
    Posts
    14,115

    Default

    With misile shields popping up all around Russia isn't it obvious what the long term strategy behind it is?
    Of course Russia is going to try and stop it.
    With all the pushing and shoving these days we might end up much closer to a nuclear confrontation cold war style.
    I think it's ridiculous how some seem to think having nukes (and paying for them) + having ABM (and paying for them) + new arms race resulting from it (and it's costs) are somehow preferable to good old MAD where nobody thinks of using nukes as long as he's not being pushed in a corner.

  9. #69
    Making Canadians look bad sepheronx's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    25
    Posts
    10,478

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xaito View Post
    With misile shields popping up all around Russia isn't it obvious what the long term strategy behind it is?
    Of course Russia is going to try and stop it.
    With all the pushing and shoving these days we might end up much closer to a nuclear confrontation cold war style.
    I think it's ridiculous how some seem to think having nukes (and paying for them) + having ABM (and paying for them) + new arms race resulting from it (and it's costs) are somehow preferable to good old MAD where nobody thinks of using nukes as long as he's not being pushed in a corner.
    X2

    I mean, ok, interceptors in Poland, radar in Turkey and now interceptors in Norway? This is becoming more and more obvious that this is aimed as well at Russia. So Russia has every right to be cautious even if these interceptors may not be good enough for what Russia has, it still may give some people the idea that they have enough protection to do something stupid. More than likely, Russia will end up fielding more SSBN's in order to counterbalance the missile shields being placed around her.

  10. #70
    Senior Member artjomh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    4,945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by archibald harry tuttle View Post
    For starters your main argument is flawed. A treaty is an agreement and thus one party is not just telling another what they can or can not have, they negociate. After the implementation of a treaty all they can do is ask the other parties to observe what was agreed upon and not more.
    Your knowledge of treaty status leaves a lot to be desired, but that's kind of missing the point.

    The point is, when a Country A tells country B that it wants Condition C, that's an opening move in diplomacy. Country B might say No, Country B might say Yes, or Country B might say, Yes, but only under Condition D. Then Country A says, if you are going to say No, then we will introduce Condition E, but if you say yes and demand Condition D, then we also require Condition F. And so on...

    Eventually this discussion leads to some kind of mutual agreement, which may be legal and written down as a treaty, or may be just an unspoken understanding.

    That's how diplomacy works. To deny this is to deny 5000 years or human history. If you claim that nothIng should be achieved through diplomacy is to say that the only way that a country might conduct it's foreign policy is through war. How else would they let their wishes be known?

  11. #71
    Senior Member Halidon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loke2 View Post
    There are 3 types of MK41 and not all of them can fit SM-3 missiles.... My previous understanding was that the Nansen MK41 was too small to accept an SM-3. OTOH that may still be correct; they do have only 1 8-cell MK41 each but space to add some more cells. Perhaps there is sufficient space to add SM-3 capable MK41s?
    It would take some adaptation. They would need full-length VLS cells, the necessary software upgrades, their smaller SPY arrays will need to be compensated for, and they'll need to consider the trade-off of SM-3s versus more ESSM quad-packs. But its do-able. In the nearer-term, their radars could be networked in to target for land-based missiles or other AEGIS ships.

  12. #72
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kingdom of Denmark
    Posts
    534

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sepheronx View Post
    X2

    I mean, ok, interceptors in Poland, radar in Turkey and now interceptors in Norway? This is becoming more and more obvious that this is aimed as well at Russia. So Russia has every right to be cautious even if these interceptors may not be good enough for what Russia has, it still may give some people the idea that they have enough protection to do something stupid. More than likely, Russia will end up fielding more SSBN's in order to counterbalance the missile shields being placed around her.
    Doing something stupid? The only player doing stupid things in this game is Russias intruding into scandinavian airspace, which happens a bit too often IMHO.

  13. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    3,464

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AfterEight View Post
    Doing something stupid? The only player doing stupid things in this game is Russias intruding into scandinavian airspace, which happens a bit too often IMHO.
    Intruding into airspace? Care to provide a link?

  14. #74
    Senior Member Xaito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    28
    Posts
    14,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shuredgefan View Post
    Norway could just install the Aegis BMD software and SM-3 missiles on the sly. Hey, the ships LOOK the same from the outside installed or not.

    Everyone's happy!
    and Russian foreign intelligence won't notice... right.
    Also the shields are obviously installed as bargaining chips and means of pressure, not really to be used - thus secrecy probably isn't desirable.

  15. #75
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    44
    Posts
    12,292

    Default

    Art, you know there's a big difference between countries negotiating mutual arms limitations/reductions and country A telling country B not to modernize its forces or else.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •