Bush lied about anti-missile shield. It was against Russia, not Iran

#1
Though Moscow was well aware about it.

WikiLeaks cables: planned US missile shield blind to nuclear weapons - Telegraph

A leaked cable obtained by WikiLeaks detailing US talks with Moscow describes a briefing by General O’Reilly on the capabilities of the Czech radar.

It states: “He noted that it was an X-Band radar which could only see in a straight line, not over the horizon; its range was approximately 2000 kilometres, its beam size was point 155 degrees; and it could not search and locate by itself.

“The key was that the Czech radar could not bend radio waves; its minimum elevation was two degrees… Below two degrees, ground clutter would interfere.

“Thus, depending on the location of the launch, the first 245, 450 or 850 kilometres of flight could not be seen. Therefore, the radar was incapable of seeing a missile in the boost phase. By the time the radar saw the missile, it would be too late to launch an interceptor.

“Even with upgrades to the radar, Gen O'Reilly continued, an X-band radar in the Czech Republic would never give the US the capability to intercept Russia's ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles).”
 
#2
So the missile shield would useless against a Soviet era ICBM. I don't think this is news. It was always a boondoggle with very limited value.
 
#3
I don't know why Bush was ever worried about Russian ICBM's. Could the Russian crews even find the keys in their alcoholic stupors?
 
A

ALVIN

Guest
#4
A victory for the sceptics then ??

Do you think Russian intelligence ever believed anything this liar said ??
 
#5
The purpose of these imaginary interceptors was always political rather than military; the whole thing was dreamed up in the first place by a pair of American sci-fi writers. Larry Niven and Jeremy Pournelle IIRC. Political against the American public (the Russkies are the Devil but I, Ronnie, and my heirs will protect you), and as was later claimed, part of a stratagem to get the USSR to bankrupt itself spending money on countermeasures (which was a crock of shit IMO).
 
#6
The purpose of these imaginary interceptors was always political rather than military; the whole thing was dreamed up in the first place by a pair of American sci-fi writers. Larry Niven and Jeremy Pournelle IIRC. Political against the American public (the Russkies are the Devil but I, Ronnie, and my heirs will protect you), and as was later claimed, part of a stratagem to get the USSR to bankrupt itself spending money on countermeasures (which was a crock of shit IMO).
Which did indeed work........thro Bush as President was already too late...;-)
 
#8
There are many reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed, but I rather doubt that spending on countermeasures to an absurd fiction was foremost among them.
The prolific waste of money and effort that was the Cold War contributed significantly to their demise though. How many blokes would have stood watch on the IGB or similar and watched as the great devils of capitalism didn't come screaming over the border to take Moskva.
 
#9
The prolific waste of money and effort that was the Cold War contributed significantly to their demise though. How many blokes would have stood watch on the IGB or similar and watched as the great devils of capitalism didn't come screaming over the border to take Moskva.
I absolutely agree; I don't however think that SDI was ever a credible threat. When Edvard Teller told the House that one single X-ray laser module could shoot down the entire Soviet land-based missile force, they must have been pissing themselves laughing in Novaya Zemlya. It was just American 'security theatre'.
 
#10
But the moment such a desire was put forward, they would have to contemplate the idea that some sort of counter-measure to an ICBM would be in the offing.

Once this counter-measure was in place the Russians would know (for example) 1 in 10 missiles would get hit, thus they would build more missiles to keep the status quo.

All costing wedge.

Difference is in the West most of the technology we invested in for teh Cold War has found its way in to useful peace time fields. Sh1t loads of blokes with AKs and armoured tractors are a sort of a niche capabilty in the big picture.
 
#11
There are many reasons why the Soviet Union collapsed, but I rather doubt that spending on countermeasures to an absurd fiction was foremost among them.

But trying to match the sudden change in US Defence spending did. Reagan was talking about a USN with 600 warships at one point, about the size of the RN in the early 19th Century. Trying to even keep pace with the sudden explosion in US Defence technological advances was almost impossible for the USSR...but they tried manfully.
 
#12
But trying to match the sudden change in US Defence spending did. Reagan was talking about a USN with 600 warships at one point, about the size of the RN in the early 19th Century. Trying to even keep pace with the sudden explosion in US Defence technological advances was almost impossible for the USSR...but they tried manfully.
Again, agreed.

But not because of the Death Rays from Outer Space. If it was a ruse to upset the Russians it was a crap one; it was more akin to Kennedy's fictional 'mizzle gap'.
 
#13
We won the cold war because we largely hollowed out our defence capabilities in order to feed our economies, while the USSR did the opposite.

Anything that drained moolah from the reds was a good idea. Even SDI: it sounded way cool and was claimed (key word) to be effective. The Russkies then had to assume it was probably (key word) effective, and spend money accordingly.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top