Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 143

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

  1. #106
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    44
    Posts
    12,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xaito View Post
    Obviously diplomacy is a two way street.
    I think noteworthy is that recently actions were started by NATO side and Russia was reacting.
    It rapidly becomes a chicken-or-egg question. A begat B who begat C who begat D....ad nauseam. Sprinkle generously with a lot of "our side merely reacts", "the other side always provokes" rhetoric and voila, instant international summit with real bits of political grandstanding.

    Norway modernizes its armed forces - last time I checked, it kinda was one of the prerogatives of the Norwegian government, if not one of its core duties, not to mention one of its duties as a NATO member. It seems that Russia (who, last time I checked, also considers its duty to upgrade its armed forces) protests the move: don't do this, Norway, or you'll get into some trouble.

    We'll see what is Norway's response, but I'm quite certain that the natural one is to implement the modernization of Norway's armed forces that has been devised by Norway's military at the pace determined by Norway's government, with the funds authorized by Norway's parliament.

  2. #107
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    44
    Posts
    12,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shurik SST View Post
    You keep using that as an example is enough. Where has Russia acted aggressively in the last 20-25 years to warrant such comparisons? People keep talking various "what ifs" without firstly acknowledging overt NATO moves to counter Russia's MAD capabilities.
    Man, people dare talk about an issue before first telling you you're right and they're wrong? And they keep using examples as well? I can see how that is a problem indeed.

    Why is every diplomatic problem countered with "what if" questions? I'm almost certain it is because we live in a universe where the past influences the future and where decisions have consequences, which better be taken into consideration BEFORE they become realities.

    Now to be precise I didn't offer a "what if" scenario - I just surmised that, if the shoe was on the other foot, people would not expect Russia to obey to a NATO warning about NOT installing such or such weapon system or face consequences... And so far the only rebuke has come in the form of "but, but, Russia's actions are totally justified", which is, oddly enough, proving my point.

  3. #108
    Senior Member Xaito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    28
    Posts
    13,787

    Default

    Has Russia opposed conventional modernization of Norway's armed forces?
    This is about fielding BMD all around Russia, upsetting the nuclear power balance and imo one of the most important strategic concerns for Russia.

  4. #109
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    44
    Posts
    12,285

    Default

    Aegis-equipped vessels are conventional forces, unless I'm badly mistaken.

    And the whole purpose of armed forces, even conventional ones, even super-defensive ones, is to be a threat to potential aggressors - which yes, include Russia as well at the moment.

  5. #110
    Senior Member Xaito's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Age
    28
    Posts
    13,787

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantic Friend View Post
    Aegis-equipped vessels are conventional forces, unless I'm badly mistaken.

    And the whole purpose of armed forces, even conventional ones, even super-defensive ones, is to be a threat to potential aggressors - which yes, include Russia as well at the moment.
    We've had that situation where two sides were not willing to back off a bit during cold war. Supposedly we should have learned a lesson from that time too.
    Deescalation is a real possibility and good for both sides. Tit for tat and 'no step back' policies on the other hand are bad for both sides.
    I'd wish the whole poking and probing each other would stop.

  6. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,736

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantic Friend View Post
    Man, people dare talk about an issue before first telling you you're right and they're wrong? And they keep using examples as well? I can see how that is a problem indeed.

    Why is every diplomatic problem countered with "what if" questions? I'm almost certain it is because we live in a universe where the past influences the future and where decisions have consequences, which better be taken into consideration BEFORE they become realities.

    Now to be precise I didn't offer a "what if" scenario - I just surmised that, if the shoe was on the other foot, people would not expect Russia to obey to a NATO warning about NOT installing such or such weapon system or face consequences... And so far the only rebuke has come in the form of "but, but, Russia's actions are totally justified", which is, oddly enough, proving my point.
    You're getting stuck in talk without addressing the issue at hand. You did not offer a "what if" you simply "surmised that, if the shoe was on the other foot"??? What is "surmised that, if the shoe was on the other foot" but a "what if"? Do people bother understanding what they write? Hey, I did not give a "what if" I "gave an example, surmising that if the shoe is". Really?

    Basically, the issue at hand is this, and please try to address it without some potential "what if":

    Does changing established MAD balance in building up BMD around Russia affect Russian strategic nuclear potential?

    and

    If Russian strategic nuclear balance with the NATO is upset, should that concern Russia?

  7. #112
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    44
    Posts
    12,285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by That One Guy View Post
    If Norway wants to become a node in a system whose real (as opposed to claimed) purpose is to enhance a US first-strike capability against Russia, then Russia should just announce that Norway is now targeted and be done with it.
    Norway is a NATO member. It already is a member of that club of nations currently targeted by Russia. No biggie there.

  8. #113
    Banned user
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Age
    12
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AfterEight View Post
    Gee it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't already targeted, in some old dusty soviet first strike document. Even Denmark was targeted in the Cold War to be hit by tactical nukes before a Polish invasion, who is to say they too aren't still placed on the hit list? Obviously I can't say for sure, but this threat of "you will now be targeted" is hollow at best.
    Yeah, maybe. Or at least as hollow as a multi-megaton threat can be construed. What else can they do though? At least this way they can get on with it.

  9. #114
    Senior Member Atlantic Friend's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Politically Dubious Uncle Cracka
    Age
    44
    Posts
    12,285

    Default

    Shurik, the issue at hand is that Norway is modernizing its armed forces, and that Russia is protesting that move. Russia of course can protest all it wants, and its government may feel it is its constitutional duty to do so.

    And I'm saying that between Russia's right to protest and Norway's right to modernize, I find it odd that some expect Norway to favor the first over the second, particularly since they would change tack if it was NATO protesting Russian modernization...

  10. #115
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    26
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Atlantic Friend View Post
    Shurik, the issue at hand is that Norway is modernizing its armed forces, and that Russia is protesting that move. Russia of course can protest all it wants, and its government may feel it is its constitutional duty to do so.

    And I'm saying that between Russia's right to protest and Norway's right to modernize, I find it odd that some expect Norway to favor the first over the second, particularly since they would change tack if it was NATO protesting Russian modernization...


    I don't think we have any plans to equip our Nansen frigates with SM3s. And I personally don't think we should either.

  11. #116
    Senior Member memfisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    600ft under the Canadian Shield
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mablod View Post
    I don't think we have any plans to equip our Nansen frigates with SM3s. And I personally don't think we should either.
    Isn't the VLS aboard Fridtjof Nansen too short to even accomodate SM3? I dont think you can if you wanted to

  12. #117
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    26
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by memfisa View Post
    Isn't the VLS aboard Fridtjof Nansen too short to even accomodate SM3? I dont think you can if you wanted to
    That could very well be, I have no idea to be honest. If we can't I don't see why this is even brought up, it's not like we are planning on replacing the frigates why just got.

  13. #118
    Senior Member memfisa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    600ft under the Canadian Shield
    Posts
    1,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mablod View Post
    That could very well be, I have no idea to be honest. If we can't I don't see why this is even brought up, it's not like we are planning on replacing the frigates why just got.


    Dont know if you can see that clearly, its small as hell

    Oh and BTW your frigate is very sexy
    Attachments Pending Approval Attachments Pending Approval
    Last edited by memfisa; 02-24-2012 at 11:02 AM.

  14. #119
    Senior Member szr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    9,456

    Default

    Maybe Gen. Nikolai Makarov, Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia and First Deputy Minister of Defence, was thinking of Japan when he said "Norway."..?

  15. #120
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Norway
    Age
    26
    Posts
    368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by memfisa View Post


    Dont know if you can see that clearly, its small as hell

    Oh and BTW your frigate is very sexy
    Sorry thats to small for my eyes

    But I think the SM3 fits in the MK41 VLS. Although I'm not sure if it's possible to modify the SPY-1F radar to BMD capability.

    There has also been criticism on the usage of the AEGIS system and the SPY-1F radar, as some fear its interoperability with other AEGIS Class vessels may be used to support the US missile defense, which remains a controversial issue. While its Link-11 capabilities allow basic level integration into US Navy groups, and Co-operative Engagement Capability could be installed quickly if not already present, the SPY-1F differs from the SPY-1D(V) in that it has not been designed to provide ballistic missile defense capability through software and hardware modifications. Such tasks are also beyond the capabilities of the Fridtjof Nansen Class’ ESSM air-defense missiles.
    http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...versies-02329/

Posting Permissions

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