Next Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
M¢37 Funded By Mahalo ? |
October 01, 2009 02:01 PM
RSS
Ohio class submarine launching Trident ICBM´s
.jpg/800px-Ohio-class_submarine_launches_Trident_ICBMs_(artist_concept).jpg)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Ohio-class_submarine_launches_Trident_ICBMs_(artist_concept).jpg/800px-Ohio-class_submarine_launches_Trident_ICBMs_(artist_concept).jpg
The whole missile shield has a first frontal line: the nuclear missile submarine. In reality the submarine shield has always been present whether or not a ground missile shield of any kind has been fielded in the past. Technically, there have been no replacements of ground missile shields in favor of submarine shields of any kind.
Submarine based missiles that could protect Poland or Western Europe will be able to reach great part of the whole intercontinental ballistic umbrella. Inside, some of the European ground missile shields of different sizes coexist. First introduced in the early 60s, the ballistic nuclear submarine was seen as the guarantor of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine. It was thought that way because submarines were hard to detect and destroy, thus guaranteen counterstrike capability.
According to "parallaxbrief.wordpress.com":
---Quote---
In practice it was the opposite. Because the submarines could close the distance between the launch and target by sneaking close to the enemy’s coast, they raised the spectre of a countervalue strike (a strike against a nation’s industrial, commercial and transport infrastructure, as well as against population) that could disable an enemy before it had time to react.
Instead of 30 minutes between launch from, say Krasnoyarsk missile fields to impact on Central Park, a submarine could ghost onto the US continental self and turn the Capitol into rubble within three minutes of launch. Too little time for decision makers to react before being vaporized; likely too little time to launch missiles before they are destroyed in their silos. It’s a potential game over.
Russia is concerned about whether a missile shield makes a first strike viable by mopping up the few missiles not destroyed in a US first strike. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is potentially skewered by the missile shield, which at the end concerns both sides.
---/Quote---
Underwater launch of a Trident Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
http://www.noahshachtman.com/images/Trident_missile_image.jpg
Source(s):
http://parallaxbrief.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/more-missile-shield-misunders...
Permalink | Report
In any case, a lot of the chatter about planting missiles in Poland was not to defend against Russia... it was to provide a land based platform to strike Iran from, where they were close enough to hit Iran, but not so close that they could be targetted by Iranian missiles in a first-strike.
Turkey could not allow itself to be used as a missile base, nor could any of the Arab allies like Saudi Arabia, for Turkey and the Saudis, although American allies, are within range of Iranian missiles, plus they are Mulsim, and although Sunni, whereas Iranians are Shi'ite, they have to maintain a degree of neutrality when it comes to dealing with Mullahs.
Russia could not be used as a platform because it must stay neutral with Iran. China's not an option, nor was India nor Pakistan, all because they would never let themselves to be used as platforms for US missiles, or because they are too close to iran.
The only candidate that seemed to fit the bill was Poland. It was contending for membership in NATO, it is close enough to Iran for medium range missiles stationed there to hit Iran, but far enough away to be out of range of Iranian missiles. Plus it's Catholic, and has no lost love for Muslims.
It got complicated because on one hand the missiles were there to target Iran, but on the other hand it couldn't be too obvious that the target was Iran, or that would just give the Mullahs enough material to make a public case out of their position to their own people... it had to be all *implied*, but the problem with using *implied* threats is that you have to include every other implication, such that it was Russians who had to publicly fret that maybe the US wasn't really trying to target Iran - that maybe the US was doing a double-blind aim at Russia - and Russia had to say something, because if she didn't, then Iran would have asked her why she was being so quiet about it, which would risk Russia's neutrality with Iran.
Now the thing is, because submarine based missiles are so much more potentially lethal than ground based missiles, it has to be noted that generally, ground based missiles are put in place only for psychological reasons, *because* they are obvious. Subs are too sneaky and it's hard to intimidate people with them, even though they're much more dangerous.
If there's talk now about replacing ground based missiles in Poland with a submarine defense, it's likely that it's just become too politically complicated to deal with on the stage of international politics, and so a nice way out is to say that you're going to replace it with subs, which are so sneaky that you'll never know if you've really replaced it with subs or not, and to look for some other way to intimidate Iran, and you can always say that the subs that nobody can see (because they aren't there) are there to protect eastern europe against Russia in order to maintain the plausibility that the missiles were not going on Polish soil to explicity threaten Iran, only *implicity* be a potential threat but officially were there for Poland's benefit against Russia if need be.
That way, even though Iran might know they were the target of those US missiles on Polish soil, the Polish government itself could always maintain consent from its own people by telling the Polish people that the missiles were there to protect against Russia, not target Iran, and now the Polish government can tell Polish people that they are still protected, only now by invisible submarines, while the US looks for another way to intimidate Iran.
Permalink | Report
http://www.transitionsabroad.com/images/maps/central_eastern_europe.gif
Too much to digest omicron. You are right in some respects in others I don´t agree. In short, the whole missile shield is the worst gamble American has assembled during the last 15 years. There was no need for it.
You are saying that in order to menace Iran with ballistic missiles, the only option were to put them in Poland? ¿that Poland was (among some 208 countries in the world) the only place on Earth to put such missiles? Come ooon... please!! (take a look at the map)
With such and idiotic doctrine Bush administration stirred the status quo with the Russian which worked during the last 15 years... just to menace the Iranians? They are or too stupid or very conspicuous with the Russian. You want to piss the Russian... mess with Poland, then you´ll have a hot potato in your hands and nothing to diffuse it. Two World wars have been fought over an issue with Poland...
¿And now the Americans are stirring the bee nest just to cover a far foreign Muslim country that could be easily targeted in the first place with Submarine missiles operative since the beginning of the nuclear age?
The state department and the department of defense dropped the ball one more time showing again how American foreign policy hadn´t grew up a bit during the last 60 years. Failure after failure has been an American trade mark with international affaires. America mess up with countries so much that at the end, and after a lengthy political process, the thing always ends up in another American made war.
Take a look a this doctrine: Batista in Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, Sha in Iran, Marcos in Philippines, Hussein in Irak, Somoza in Nicaragua all faithful allies of the US.. Ended up death, overthroned, trialed or in exile and their former countries so messed up that they turned down any American influence ever since, the US gets a new enemy and the hate on Americans is turned into a new religion. Way to go, eh?
...aaah, and for Poland being the only, only, lonely country in the world to house the missile shield, well, there is always (in the map, coming from north to south and getting closer to Iran) Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo (where America has the biggest military base overseas) Italy, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Crete (Mediterranean island which also belongs to Greece), Israel or the island of Diego Garcia, in the Indic Ocean. All of these places much closer to Iran than Poland, all available, all friendly countries, some are members of NATO and most willing to deploy the shield.
There was ever an intention for the Polish shield to cover Iran? NO
There was ever an intention for the Polish shield to cover Russia? YES
Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, the largest American military base outside the US. ¿Why deal with a messy affair with Russia over Poland if America has established a huge outpost in a much closer place?
http://hidhist.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/camp_bondsteel_kosovo1.jpg
Report
Answered Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
How will a submarine shield protect Poland and Western Europe from Russian occupation?
The missile shield will be replaced with a submarine shield. How will the submarine shield work?
Interesting Question?
Yes (0)
No (0)
- In Science & Mathematics |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| October 03, 2009 12:22 AM |
The whole missile shield has a first frontal line: the nuclear missile submarine. In reality the submarine shield has always been present whether or not a ground missile shield of any kind has been fielded in the past. Technically, there have been no replacements of ground missile shields in favor of submarine shields of any kind.
Submarine based missiles that could protect Poland or Western Europe will be able to reach great part of the whole intercontinental ballistic umbrella. Inside, some of the European ground missile shields of different sizes coexist. First introduced in the early 60s, the ballistic nuclear submarine was seen as the guarantor of the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) doctrine. It was thought that way because submarines were hard to detect and destroy, thus guaranteen counterstrike capability.
According to "parallaxbrief.wordpress.com":
---Quote---
In practice it was the opposite. Because the submarines could close the distance between the launch and target by sneaking close to the enemy’s coast, they raised the spectre of a countervalue strike (a strike against a nation’s industrial, commercial and transport infrastructure, as well as against population) that could disable an enemy before it had time to react.
Instead of 30 minutes between launch from, say Krasnoyarsk missile fields to impact on Central Park, a submarine could ghost onto the US continental self and turn the Capitol into rubble within three minutes of launch. Too little time for decision makers to react before being vaporized; likely too little time to launch missiles before they are destroyed in their silos. It’s a potential game over.
Russia is concerned about whether a missile shield makes a first strike viable by mopping up the few missiles not destroyed in a US first strike. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction is potentially skewered by the missile shield, which at the end concerns both sides.
---/Quote---
Underwater launch of a Trident Intercontinental Ballistic Missile
Source(s):
http://parallaxbrief.wordpress.com/2009/03/03/more-missile-shield-misunders...
| Asker's Rating: |
• The removal of the European Shield would seem to be aimed at the deescalation of nuclear arms between the US and Russia. The media has been portraying that the removal of visible missiles signal a change in East verse West relationships, a period of peace and prosperity. The media announced that SALT will be resumed. Hopefully, the Bear is not hungry
Permalink | Report
Reply
Other Answers (1)
October 03, 2009 02:20 AM
Submarine based nuclear deterents have always been a better option that land based missiles, because they're mobile, and because the platforms are more stealthy, which means it's harder to take them out in a pre-emptive strike. In any case, a lot of the chatter about planting missiles in Poland was not to defend against Russia... it was to provide a land based platform to strike Iran from, where they were close enough to hit Iran, but not so close that they could be targetted by Iranian missiles in a first-strike.
Turkey could not allow itself to be used as a missile base, nor could any of the Arab allies like Saudi Arabia, for Turkey and the Saudis, although American allies, are within range of Iranian missiles, plus they are Mulsim, and although Sunni, whereas Iranians are Shi'ite, they have to maintain a degree of neutrality when it comes to dealing with Mullahs.
Russia could not be used as a platform because it must stay neutral with Iran. China's not an option, nor was India nor Pakistan, all because they would never let themselves to be used as platforms for US missiles, or because they are too close to iran.
The only candidate that seemed to fit the bill was Poland. It was contending for membership in NATO, it is close enough to Iran for medium range missiles stationed there to hit Iran, but far enough away to be out of range of Iranian missiles. Plus it's Catholic, and has no lost love for Muslims.
It got complicated because on one hand the missiles were there to target Iran, but on the other hand it couldn't be too obvious that the target was Iran, or that would just give the Mullahs enough material to make a public case out of their position to their own people... it had to be all *implied*, but the problem with using *implied* threats is that you have to include every other implication, such that it was Russians who had to publicly fret that maybe the US wasn't really trying to target Iran - that maybe the US was doing a double-blind aim at Russia - and Russia had to say something, because if she didn't, then Iran would have asked her why she was being so quiet about it, which would risk Russia's neutrality with Iran.
Now the thing is, because submarine based missiles are so much more potentially lethal than ground based missiles, it has to be noted that generally, ground based missiles are put in place only for psychological reasons, *because* they are obvious. Subs are too sneaky and it's hard to intimidate people with them, even though they're much more dangerous.
If there's talk now about replacing ground based missiles in Poland with a submarine defense, it's likely that it's just become too politically complicated to deal with on the stage of international politics, and so a nice way out is to say that you're going to replace it with subs, which are so sneaky that you'll never know if you've really replaced it with subs or not, and to look for some other way to intimidate Iran, and you can always say that the subs that nobody can see (because they aren't there) are there to protect eastern europe against Russia in order to maintain the plausibility that the missiles were not going on Polish soil to explicity threaten Iran, only *implicity* be a potential threat but officially were there for Poland's benefit against Russia if need be.
That way, even though Iran might know they were the target of those US missiles on Polish soil, the Polish government itself could always maintain consent from its own people by telling the Polish people that the missiles were there to protect against Russia, not target Iran, and now the Polish government can tell Polish people that they are still protected, only now by invisible submarines, while the US looks for another way to intimidate Iran.
Permalink | Report
Reply
October 03, 2009 03:40 PM
Too much to digest omicron. You are right in some respects in others I don´t agree. In short, the whole missile shield is the worst gamble American has assembled during the last 15 years. There was no need for it.
You are saying that in order to menace Iran with ballistic missiles, the only option were to put them in Poland? ¿that Poland was (among some 208 countries in the world) the only place on Earth to put such missiles? Come ooon... please!! (take a look at the map)
With such and idiotic doctrine Bush administration stirred the status quo with the Russian which worked during the last 15 years... just to menace the Iranians? They are or too stupid or very conspicuous with the Russian. You want to piss the Russian... mess with Poland, then you´ll have a hot potato in your hands and nothing to diffuse it. Two World wars have been fought over an issue with Poland...
¿And now the Americans are stirring the bee nest just to cover a far foreign Muslim country that could be easily targeted in the first place with Submarine missiles operative since the beginning of the nuclear age?
The state department and the department of defense dropped the ball one more time showing again how American foreign policy hadn´t grew up a bit during the last 60 years. Failure after failure has been an American trade mark with international affaires. America mess up with countries so much that at the end, and after a lengthy political process, the thing always ends up in another American made war.
Take a look a this doctrine: Batista in Cuba, Pinochet in Chile, Sha in Iran, Marcos in Philippines, Hussein in Irak, Somoza in Nicaragua all faithful allies of the US.. Ended up death, overthroned, trialed or in exile and their former countries so messed up that they turned down any American influence ever since, the US gets a new enemy and the hate on Americans is turned into a new religion. Way to go, eh?
...aaah, and for Poland being the only, only, lonely country in the world to house the missile shield, well, there is always (in the map, coming from north to south and getting closer to Iran) Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Kosovo (where America has the biggest military base overseas) Italy, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, Crete (Mediterranean island which also belongs to Greece), Israel or the island of Diego Garcia, in the Indic Ocean. All of these places much closer to Iran than Poland, all available, all friendly countries, some are members of NATO and most willing to deploy the shield.
There was ever an intention for the Polish shield to cover Iran? NO
There was ever an intention for the Polish shield to cover Russia? YES
Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, the largest American military base outside the US. ¿Why deal with a messy affair with Russia over Poland if America has established a huge outpost in a much closer place?
October 03, 2009 04:18 PM
Submarines hunt submarines, as described in the "The American Lake", so if each deterent submarine is in check, how can a shield be considered affective?
Report
October 03, 2009 04:52 PM
Submarines are quieter than the noise of the Oceans. To detect one, some specialized hydrophones, towed arrays, thermocline sonars, seismic anomalies detectors and sound analysis computer are required.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Vo6EgaeX7x0/SnHasJE2FSI/AAAAAAAAGSc/lMXN9QQZZRE/s400/Underwater-Express-Submarine.jpg
Because Submarines are the most difficult artifacts to detect "under" the face of the Earth. Today´s American submarines have the edge over any other built by any nation including the Russians.
American submarines are quieter, stealthier, more technologically advanced and lethal than any other on the planet. So, saying one sub is gonna take down other is too adventurous to conclude.
Just for the example, recently two nuclear submarines, one French and one British collided under water somewhere under the British Channel. They were so quieter that both subs missed each other and were unable to detect any sign of the incoming sub.
It was so strange that at first one of the subs captains thought he had hit a container submerged on the water, one that may have fallen overboard from one of the many cargo ships that crossed the Channel daily.
It was not until a month later that both countries confronted logs and concluded that both submarines collided underwater. Now, American submarines are much better and silent than that of the French or British.
Modern submarines are so hard to detect (despite their enormous size) that they are quieter than the surrounding water in the oceans. One way to detect them is by its magnetic signature which (if found) can be contrasted against the magnetic background of the Earth, in short the sub makes a "hole" in the Ocean, an empty space without magnetism. Looking for those empty holes contrasted against the Earth magnetism id the way to find them. Not an easy task.
As far as I know, no American ballistic submarine (dubbed Boomers) has been ever detected in deep waters. They are the quieter, stealthier and deadly machine Man has ever created. Thus, they are the most effective known deterrent. Ground silos are fixed and the Russian know their locations since decades ago. Whilst, nobody knows where a submarine location is once it goes underwater. They are even harder to detect by their own forces.
Report
Because Submarines are the most difficult artifacts to detect "under" the face of the Earth. Today´s American submarines have the edge over any other built by any nation including the Russians.
American submarines are quieter, stealthier, more technologically advanced and lethal than any other on the planet. So, saying one sub is gonna take down other is too adventurous to conclude.
Just for the example, recently two nuclear submarines, one French and one British collided under water somewhere under the British Channel. They were so quieter that both subs missed each other and were unable to detect any sign of the incoming sub.
It was so strange that at first one of the subs captains thought he had hit a container submerged on the water, one that may have fallen overboard from one of the many cargo ships that crossed the Channel daily.
It was not until a month later that both countries confronted logs and concluded that both submarines collided underwater. Now, American submarines are much better and silent than that of the French or British.
Modern submarines are so hard to detect (despite their enormous size) that they are quieter than the surrounding water in the oceans. One way to detect them is by its magnetic signature which (if found) can be contrasted against the magnetic background of the Earth, in short the sub makes a "hole" in the Ocean, an empty space without magnetism. Looking for those empty holes contrasted against the Earth magnetism id the way to find them. Not an easy task.
As far as I know, no American ballistic submarine (dubbed Boomers) has been ever detected in deep waters. They are the quieter, stealthier and deadly machine Man has ever created. Thus, they are the most effective known deterrent. Ground silos are fixed and the Russian know their locations since decades ago. Whilst, nobody knows where a submarine location is once it goes underwater. They are even harder to detect by their own forces.
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- liaagustina, November 24, 2009 08:41 AM
- dhine, November 24, 2009 08:30 AM
- vickiechavez, November 24, 2009 08:22 AM
- cbluej7070, November 24, 2009 07:51 AM
- dhie, November 24, 2009 07:48 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
omicron analysis was very good and convincing. Omicron logic for selection of Poland as a land shield seems feasible. The purpose of a missile shield as a deterrence against land policy breaks down. The purpose must have been more macro in scope, (Russia or Iran) However, the power move has to be Russia. Iran's potential actions are not independant Russia's superpower consent.