If United Europe Went to War With The U.S.A

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Wait. Something is wrong here.
You argue that the current BPI system canl;t be effective because the SRBs dont provide enough impulse.

But yet, all the BPI system tests, including those that involve intercepts, have been successful.

How can that be?

Not all of the tests were successful. Not to mention the fact that the interceptors were always a very short distance away from the mock-warheads and decoys. It's not representative of reality and the analysis prooves that the interceptor missiles would not reach real warheads in time, can't tell the difference between decoys and real warheads, and are unreliable.

And you're proceeding under a false premise -- the NMD system isnt designerd to make us look invicible, its designed to keep missiles from hittin our cities.

Face facts. The shield has been in it's developmental stages for more than 30 years. The analysis of the data and simulations proove that our current technology is insufficient to construct a defense system capable of defending us from a missile attack. It is designed to make the U.S. appear to be invincible to missile attack. All of the simulations and the analysis of the data shows that the system would fail.

Specify these 'less than nominal positive results'.

I've already quoted the report and provided a link to it. Read the report.

 

[Billo_Really]

Are you people that psychotic that you think this is a war game? That its only on TV? Why are you discussing bullshit? Why don't you make your peace with God just in case the very real possibility of us making a move on Iran after Russia told us hands off. They have a military pact with China. If it escalates, we will get bitch-slapped big-time with our troops all spread out in two hemispheres. And our country just might start glowing in the dark.

Don't be so fukking stupid thinking that were invinsible. Who the hell do you think we are anyway, "Walker, Texas Ranger?"

 

[M14 Shooter]

Not all of the tests were successful.

You're confuding the GBI/EKV tests with the BPI tests.
But thats OK - you have to do someting to support your position, so you'll deliberatley confuse the systems, trying to covert the success of one with the 'failures' of the other.

Not to mention the fact that the interceptors were always a very short distance away from the mock-warheads and decoys.

Decoys?
How does an ICBM, in the atmosphere, in boost phase, produce effective decoys?

It's not representative of reality and the analysis prooves that the interceptor missiles would not reach real warheads in time, can't tell the difference between decoys and real warheads, and are unreliable.

And the testing shows otherwise.
Whats more reliable - test results or some analyisis that reaches a conclusion opposite what the testing shows?

Face facts. The shield has been in it's developmental stages for more than 30 years.

50 years. And for the first 25 of them, the shield was effective.

The analysis of the data and simulations proove that our current technology is insufficient to construct a defense system capable of defending us from a missile attack.

"Current technology"?
So, development should continue.
Right?

It is designed to make the U.S. appear to be invincible to missile attack.

No, its designed to protect the US from a limited strike.
How does that 'make us look invincible'?
And - isnt looking invincible an effective deterrent?

All of the simulations and the analysis of the data shows that the system would fail.

And the actual testing shows otherwise.

I've already quoted the report and provided a link to it. Read the report

Translation:
You can't answer my questions.
Good enough.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Are you people that psychotic that you think this is a war game? That its only on TV? Why are you discussing bullshit? Why don't you make your peace with God just in case the very real possibility of us making a move on Iran after Russia told us hands off. They have a military pact with China. If it escalates, we will get bitch-slapped big-time with our troops all spread out in two hemispheres. And our country just might start glowing in the dark.

Don't be so fukking stupid thinking that were invinsible. Who the hell do you think we are anyway, "Walker, Texas Ranger?"

You need to up your adderal.

 

[Kandahar]

Why don't you make your peace with God just in case the very real possibility of us making a move on Iran

An invasion of Iran is EXTREMELY unlikely in the current geopolitical climate.

after Russia told us hands off.

You really think that Russia would militarily defend Iran against the United States in the event of an attack? This is even less likely. In fact, it's impossible.

They have a military pact with China.

No they don't, and both Russia and China consider their relationship with America to be more important than their relationship with each other.

If it escalates, we will get bitch-slapped big-time with our troops all spread out in two hemispheres. And our country just might start glowing in the dark.

You have a very active imagination. Fortunately none of these scenarios are even remotely likely to occur.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter:
You need to up your adderal.

You need to realize that maybe God just doesn't like you!

 

[M14 Shooter]

You need to realize that maybe God just doesn't like you!

Thats FAR less likely than your need for more adderal.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Kandahar:
An invasion of Iran is EXTREMELY unlikely in the current geopolitical climate.

After all the war talk coming out of Washington towards Iran, would you care to explain your take on the geopolitical climate in more detail? Even if unlikely, doesn't mean it won't happen. I hope your right.

Originally Posted by Kandahar:
You really think that Russia would militarily defend Iran against the United States in the event of an attack? This is even less likely. In fact, it's impossible.

I think the possibility exists. Especially after Russia had talks on this subject with our government. Why would they go to the trouble of commenting on it if they weren't interested on some level. When you look at this along with the fact were the ones going around the world attacking people (or threatening too), other countries might get sick of this. We can't go around telling sovereign nations whats what in their own country. Again, I'm with you, I hope they don't.

Originally Posted by Kandahar:
No they don't, and both Russia and China consider their relationship with America to be more important than their relationship with each other.

You didn't notice their war games recently in the Indian Ocean. The first time in history they ever did joint manuvers on that scale. Logically, it would take both of them to beat us. Which would actually be a draw. But we'd all be dead by then, so we wouldn't know.

Originally Posted by Kandahar:
You have a very active imagination. Fortunately none of these scenarios are even remotely likely to occur.

It doesn't take Nostrodamus see the real world possiblities that are on the table of what might happen. I think its better to be aware of something that might happen, instead of blowing it off as something that won't, then it does. Didn't history teach you anything. Challenger blew up because of people thinking things would not happen. Six million Jews were executed because people thought it could not happen. The Russian hockey team lost to the Americans in 1980 because they thought it could not happen. I'm not saying it will. I'm just saying it could.

The possibility is real, not imagined.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by M14 Shooter:
Thats FAR less likely than your need for more adderal.

Even if I needed it, I wouldn't be filling the coffers of the pharmacutical drug lords.

 

[Kandahar]

After all the war talk coming out of Washington towards Iran, would you care to explain your take on the geopolitical climate in more detail? Even if unlikely, doesn't mean it won't happen. I hope your right.

The fact is that any effort to go into Iran would be met with very stiff opposition from Congressional Democrats, Congressional Republicans, and the American people. If the Bush Administration is unwilling or unable to commit more troops to Iraq, what makes you think they'd be more inclined to do so elsewhere, especially with the dire situation in Iraq? Bush may talk about Iran being part of the axis of evil, but his administration is NOT talking about Iran in the same terms that they talked about Iraq prior to the invasion.

I think the possibility exists. Especially after Russia had talks on this subject with our government. Why would they go to the trouble of commenting on it if they weren't interested on some level.

I'm sure they're interested and would probably strongly oppose any American invasion of Iran, in that extremely unlikely scenario. But that's not the same thing as actively supporting Iran or fighting us in Iran.

When you look at this along with the fact were the ones going around the world attacking people (or threatening too), other countries might get sick of this. We can't go around telling sovereign nations whats what in their own country.

No argument there. However, other countries "getting sick of this" isn't the same thing as allies or neutral countries supporting our enemies.

You didn't notice their war games recently in the Indian Ocean. The first time in history they ever did joint manuvers on that scale. Logically, it would take both of them to beat us. Which would actually be a draw. But we'd all be dead by then, so we wouldn't know.

I noticed them. But I tend to agree with the assessment that most international observers have made: the war games were a show. Russia and China don't particularly like or trust each other, and both of them want to be on good terms with the United States more than they want to be on good terms with each other.

It doesn't take Nostrodamus see the real world possiblities that are on the table of what might happen. I think its better to be aware of something that might happen, instead of blowing it off as something that won't, then it does. Didn't history teach you anything. Challenger blew up because of people thinking things would not happen. Six million Jews were executed because people thought it could not happen. The Russian hockey team lost to the Americans in 1980 because they thought it could not happen. I'm not saying it will. I'm just saying it could.

The possibility is real, not imagined.

Well, nothing is impossible. But unless there are drastic improvements in Iraq, Bush's approval ratings, and America's standing in the international community in the immediate future, I think a war with Iran (with Russian and/or Chinese backing) is about as unlikely as a war with Europe.

 

[TurkSol]

this is something i can t happen but if it would happen hmmm..hard to say because it s a continental war ..and it would be more a seas war.. donno what would be the result

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

You're confuding the GBI/EKV tests with the BPI tests.
But thats OK - you have to do someting to support your position, so you'll deliberatley confuse the systems, trying to covert the success of one with the 'failures' of the other.

You deliberatley miscontrue a report which you admitedly have not even taken the time to read. The report covers all of the programs.

Decoys?
How does an ICBM, in the atmosphere, in boost phase, produce effective decoys?

LOL I can't believe I have to explain this to you. A decoy is a seperate missile.

And the testing shows otherwise.
Whats more reliable - test results or some analyisis that reaches a conclusion opposite what the testing shows?

The testing failed the majority of the time and is not representative of reality. The interceptors were always a short distance away from the mock warheads. By the way, that analysis of the data from the tests was done by the world's top physicists.

50 years. And for the first 25 of them, the shield was effective.

Thats not true. The results of the first test is a big question mark because the nuclear explosion required to power the lasers destroyed the data box. It hasn't been effective.

"Current technology"?
So, development should continue.
Right?

No. Research should continue but spending billions on a system which has been proven to be useless is ridiculous.

And - isnt looking invincible an effective deterrent?

Not in the view of a madman..which the world has plenty of.

And the actual testing shows otherwise.

No, it doesnt.

Translation:
You can't answer my questions.
Good enough.

Translation:
I've already answered your questions and you're too lazy to read the report.

 

[Androvski]

The United States would "win," if that's what you mean. We'd both be considerably worse off and would have no reason to fight each other, so I don't see the point of this question. It's like asking what would happen if Alabama and Mississippi went to war with each other.

Europe and in particular the UK have become so "Americanised" over the last thirty years or so that it would indeed be like Alabama and Mississippi"going at each other".
With Russia and China on our side we could "kick ass",but as has already been said it would only lead to nuclear conflict and then we'd all end up losers!
The UK would be a piece of cake for the US(or any invader with sufficient strength) to take out,over the last 20-30yrs the people here have been systematically disarmed with (in my opinion)an ulterior motive,as the disarmed masses would find it practically impossible to revolt against the establishment.Trouble is if our military were defeated we'd be completely defenceless against an invading force.

 

[mikeey]

Billo_Really well said, hopefully the next"MR PRESIDENT"

regards mikeey

 

[M14 Shooter]

You deliberatley miscontrue a report which you admitedly have not even taken the time to read. The report covers all of the programs.

Not according to its title it doesn't:

Boost Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense
http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/popa/reports/nmdexec.pdf

The ToC doesnt make any relevnt reference to any other component of the NMD, either. Your source here deals with ONLY the BPI program.

You clearly dont -know- what the various components of the NMD are, nor how they differ.

LOL I can't believe I have to explain this to you. A decoy is a seperate missile.

LOL
Thats not a decoy, thats a target.
A decoy is something that distracts a system from a current target. If you launch 10 missiles w/ warheads and 10 without, you have presented 20 targets, all of which get engaged. You dont NEED to discern between them because you try to shoot them all down.

The testing failed the majority of the time and is not representative of reality. The interceptors were always a short distance away from the mock warheads. By the way, that analysis of the data from the tests was done by the world's top physicists.

Please:
Cite any BPI tests that failed.
Just one. Provide a reference.

Thats not true. The results of the first test is a big question mark because the nuclear explosion required to power the lasers destroyed the data box. It hasn't been effective.

This has nothing to do with HtK PBI.

No. Research should continue but spending billions on a system which has been proven to be useless is ridiculous.

Please: cite the testoing that "proves" the HtK BPI to be useless.

Translation:
I've already answered your questions and you're too lazy to read the report

You havent answered squat; indeed, youre; illisutating to anyone that cares to read this topic that you dont have a CLUE as to what you;re talking about.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Not according to its title it doesn't:

Boost Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense
http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/popa/reports/nmdexec.pdf

Read the report. It deals with all 3 and it's foccus is on BPI. We are currently using BPI anyway.

LOL
Thats not a decoy, thats a target.
A decoy is something that distracts a system from a current target. If you launch 10 missiles w/ warheads and 10 without, you have presented 20 targets, all of which get engaged. You dont NEED to discern between them because you try to shoot them all down.

You're a fool. The target is the acctual warhead..the other missiles are the decoys which distracts the interceptor from the warhead. The system does not have the capacity to shoot them all down therefore must focus on the real warhead.

Please:
Cite any BPI tests that failed.
Just one. Provide a reference.

Read the report.

You havent answered squat; indeed, youre; illisutating to anyone that cares to read this topic that you dont have a CLUE as to what you;re talking about.

You're either too lazy to read the report or you lack the intellectual capacity to understand it's contents. Either way, you refuse to read the report therefore it is YOU who has no clue what he's talking about. I encourage everyone to read the report so we can expose M14 as the ignorant lout he is.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Read the report. It deals with all 3 and it's foccus is on BPI. We are currently using BPI anyway.

What FARCE this is.
We are NOT using BPI, presently - we are using the GBI/EKV system deployed in Alaska. The 9th GBI was emplaced on 10 OCT 2005.
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/05fyi0064.pdf

This is a midcourse/terminal phase intercept system and has -nothing- to do with BPI, and isn't addressed in your "Boost Phase Intercept System" report.

You dont have CLUE here, and you refuse to cite the part of the report that supports your claims because you KNOW its not in there.

You're a fool. The target is the acctual warhead.

LOL
During boost phase?
During boost phase, the warhead hasnt yet seperated from the missile.
You're shooting at the missile, not the warhead, and as such, the missile, not the warhead, is te target.
And you call ME a fool!
LOL

the other missiles are the decoys which distracts the interceptor from the warhead.

Tell me how this happens when, in a BPI system, one interceptor is launched at every missile under boost? Where is the "distraction"?

The system does not have the capacity to shoot them all down therefore must focus on the real warhead.

The BPI system isnt built yet. How can your claim here hold ANY water. oh have ANY support?

You're either too lazy to read the report or you lack the intellectual capacity to understand it's contents.

Excellent deflection. Clearly, as metioned above, you refuse to cite the part of the report that supports your claims because you KNOW its not in there.

Want to prove me wrong? Then support YOUR claims by citing the page of the report that says what you say it does.

I DEFY you to do so.
Thet fact that you will continue to refuse to do so says all that needs to be said.

 

[Canuck]

I would be more worried about north KOREA
CHINA IRan RUSSIA and 3/4 of europe along with south America

ATM
I dont think you have enough bullets even

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

United Europe would lose. A large number of western european nations have a large senior population. This would be bad because you can't ignore all the old peoplee. If you do than they will mostly die.

Basically Europe would lose because american troops are experianced and we have the F-22RAptor. End of story.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Basically Europe would lose because american troops are experianced and we have the F-22RAptor. End of story.

So what? A united Europe has a larger nuclear arsenal. End of story.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So what? A united Europe has a larger nuclear arsenal. End of story.

Than the United States?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - "United Europe" means the EU, not the whole of Europe.

As such, the US -seriously- overwhelms them in nuclear weapons.
UK: 192
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKArsenalRecent.html
France: 449
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/France/FranceArsenalRecent.html
US: 11040
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/nuclear.htm


And I see you've given up trying to defend your failed point regarding the NMD/BPI/GBI systems. Good for you.

 

[Androvski]

Than the United States?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here - "United Europe" means the EU, not the whole of Europe.

As such, the US -seriously- overwhelms them in nuclear weapons.
UK: 192
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKArsenalRecent.html
France: 449
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/France/FranceArsenalRecent.html
US: 11040
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/nuclear.htm


And I see you've given up trying to defend your failed point regarding the NMD/BPI/GBI systems. Good for you.

What does it matter,that's all those figures prove is that both sides would end up annihilated! 641 nukes would still result in total devastation for the US.

 

[Brigand]

What a hella of a strange 'debate' this has become...

 

[M14 Shooter]

What does it matter,that's all those figures prove is that both sides would end up annihilated! 641 nukes would still result in total devastation for the US.

That assumes they could be delivered. Most of them a SLBMs; some are aircraft-dropped. The nukes delivered by aircraft would never make it, and the SSBNs might very well be found and sunk before they could deliver. All in all, you could probably cut that number to under 300.

Thats 6 per state. While that will cause a huge amount of damage to the US, the US would survive, while the EU would be literally wiped off the face of the earth.

And so, thats an exchange the Europeans will never initiate.

 

[Androvski]

That assumes they could be delivered. Most of them a SLBMs; some are aircraft-dropped. The nukes delivered by aircraft would never make it, and the SSBNs might very well be found and sunk before they could deliver. All in all, you could probably cut that number to under 300.

Thats 6 per state. While that will cause a huge amount of damage to the US, the US would survive, while the EU would be literally wiped off the face of the earth.

And so, thats an exchange the Europeans will never initiate.

Survive maybe,I can't think of anyone who'd want to live there afterwards though!
Maybe obliteration would be preferable!
And what would all those nuclear detonations on the two continents do to the planet?
Would any place in the world remain inhabitable for long after?
As in any conflict of that nature there could only ever be losers!
Whoever was mad enough to initiate such a confrontation would be committing suicide.