Página 5 de 5

Enviado: Ter Jun 05, 2007 8:49 am
por Sintra
P44 escreveu:
dron_pizdec escreveu:Isso era a sistema desenvolvida junto com Israel, e chamava-se "Nautilus".
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/ ... /THEL.html
Esta sistema foi desenvolvida para neutralizacao da ameaca dos misseis do Hamas, mas acho que este projeto ja foi cancelado.


dron, vc que está mais "por dentro", qual é a sua opinião acerca deste novo missil, e da situação em geral gerada pela intenção de colocar estes misseis junto á Rússia?

Noutro artigo que li, fala que a verdadeira intenção é montar o radar na Polónia para monitorar os sistemas Russos, e que os Misseis anti-missil em si, são apenas a desculpa...

:?:


Na prática, colocar aqueles dez interceptadores na Polónia não tem grande utilidade em relação aos ICBM´s Russos. Se o alvo dos ICBM´s estiver na Europa, quase não existe tempo de reacção, mesmo que o ICBM fosse interceptado já o seria sobre território Polaco (com a consequente queda da ogiva sobre território... Polaco). Se o alvo for nos EUA, aqueles 10 interceptadores não têm qualquer utilidade, o vôo dos ICBM´s não passa sobre a EUropa, mas sim sobre... o Polo Norte.
Mas se alguém der-se ao trabalho de fazer um vôo parabólico a partir, digamos, do centro do Irão, com destino a Washington, aquilo passa, mais coisa, menos coisa, a 50 km´s a Norte de Varsóvia...

Enviado: Qua Jun 06, 2007 7:05 pm
por Penguin
Defence & Security News
Russia Cannot Rival US In Arms Race Says Analyst
Agence France-Presse | May 31, 2007
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish ... 012108.php

Washington: Russia may have test-fired a new rocket and warned of an "arms race" due to US missile shield plans in Europe -- but analysts say a repeat of the Cold War bomb scramble is unlikely.

"I doubt very much ... that the Russians are going to rush ahead and build a whole bucket load of these kind of missiles," Theresa Hitchens, director of the Center for Defense Information in Washington, told AFP.

She was referring to Moscow's announcement on Tuesday that it had successfully tested a RS-24 rocket, a new multiple warhead ballistic missile designed to overcome air defense systems.

"I think they would like to show the United States and the rest of the world that they are not impotent in the face of US missile defense," she added, saying Russia was "posturing" on the "political issue" of missile defense.

Russia is locked in a diplomatic battle over US plans to expand its missile defense shield into central Europe.

The United States says the system, involving a planned radar base in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland, would defend Europe against potential threats from Iran and North Korea, while posing no threat to Russia.

But Russia is furious at the plans.

Its Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday accused the United States of sparking a new arms race. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had earlier described Russian concerns as "ludicrous."

"There is nothing ludicrous about this issue because the arms race is starting again. Strategic stability is being damaged," Lavrov told reporters Wednesday after a meeting of G8 foreign ministers near Berlin.

But US analysts doubt Russia has the means to take part in such a race.

"Russia's nuclear forces will continue to shrink, even with this new missile and its warheads," said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Henry L. Stimson Center, a specialist security think-tank in Washington.

The Russian ministry of defense refused to reveal the characteristics of the new missile but said it was designed to replace the Soviet-era RS-18 and RS-20 rockets.

"This test clarifies the message that Moscow has minimal assured destruction capabilities even with US military dominance and missile defenses," Krepon said.

Political scientists Keir Lieber of Notre Dame University in Indiana and Daryl Press from the University of Pennsylvania detailed what they said was Russia's declining post-Cold War military clout last year in the journal Foreign Affairs.

"Even as the United States' nuclear forces have grown stronger since the end of the Cold War, Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated," they wrote. "What nuclear forces Russia retains are hardly ready for use."

"Unless they reverse course rapidly, Russia's vulnerability will only increase over time," they added.

"With the US arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's decays and China's stays small, the era of MAD (mutual assured destruction by nuclear weapons) is ending -- and the era of US nuclear primacy has begun."

"Arms-racing was a cold war phenomenon," said Krepon. "We are now living in a world of power disparities, which means asymmetric responses, not arms racing."

Moscow also may have other priorities beyond building stocks of weapons, Theresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information said.

The Russians "have got petrodollars coming in right now but they are trying to invest in lots of different things, particularly their space programs," she said.

When it comes to building more rockets, "the Russians are going to have to make some choices where they want to spend their money. I don't really think that President (Vladimir) Putin wants a new Cold War with the United States."

Enviado: Qua Jun 06, 2007 7:09 pm
por Carlos Mathias
A isso dá-se o nome de menosprezar um inimigo. Os comandantes americanos, que são excelentes, sabem que esse é um dos piores erros numa guerra.

Enviado: Qua Jun 06, 2007 7:17 pm
por Penguin
A World No Longer MAD
RIA Novosti | May 30, 2007
http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish ... 012085.php

Moscow: On May 26, 1972, U.S. President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, or SALT, the first bilateral agreement of its kind. It included an interim agreement on certain measures with respect to the limitation of strategic offensive arms.

The two leaders also signed the ABM Treaty. The former treaty sealed the alignment of forces in ground-based and sea-launched ballistic missiles, while in the latter the sides voluntarily renounced development of defense against these missiles.

In a way, SALT-1 was brought into being by the Vietnam War. Before it, the United States had an overwhelming albeit decreasing superiority over the Soviet Union in strategic nuclear weapons. But the adventure in South-East Asia depleted America of its strength. The Pentagon budget was blown out of all proportion. The bulk of the money went into conventional arms. They were sent to Vietnam and quickly perished in anti-Vietcong battles (the U.S. lost 8,600 aircraft and helicopters in eight and a half years).

The Soviet investment into Vietcong paled into insignificance when compared to what the United States was spending on its troops in Vietnam and its Vietnamese allies. But nonetheless Moscow inflicted a heavy defeat on Washington. At the same time, the Soviet Union made a breakthrough in strategic nuclear arms and caught up with America, which had to neglect them because of heavy Vietnamese spending. This country successfully tested its first anti-ballistic missile in 1961 - 23 years before America did.

When SALT-1 was signed, the United States was still fighting in Vietnam. The war was escalating domestic tensions. America could not afford to restore its strategic arms superiority. This is why despite resistance from the conservatives and some MIC (military-industrial complex) representatives, the U.S. leadership decided it was good enough to seal the parity.

Renunciation of nationwide ABM systems (two ABM-protected regions were allowed, and later reduced to one) was more important than offensive arms limitations. Lack of self-defense was supposed to curb a desire to attack - this was a situation of mutual assured destruction (MAD).

The ABM Treaty had a pragmatic side. Developing effective anti-ballistic weapons was much more difficult and expensive than missiles. Besides, each side could break through enemy ABM at a much smaller cost. Thus, the treaty provided an excuse to renounce exorbitant spending with very dubious results. The United States did not even go for the allowed ABM area unlike the Soviet Union, which protected Moscow against a ballistic missile attack.

During the past 35 years, the sides signed SALT-2, START-1, START-2, and finally the Strategic Potentials Treaty. For brevity's sake, they cannot be described in a short article.

Eventually, the United States walked out on the ABM Treaty when it no longer suited it.

Today, the United States is again waging a war that is likely to cost it more than the Vietnam War both financially and politically. The Pentagon budget has reached skyrocketing heights once again. As before, there is no time or money for strategic arms, but America is developing a militarily bizarre ABM system.

As during the Vietnam War, Russia can exploit America's problems but has not done this so far. The U.S. strategic nuclear force has remained unchanged for the past 15 years with a few insignificant exceptions (withdrawal of MX missiles and a portion of B-52 bombers, and replacement of ballistic weapons with cruise missiles on four Ohio nuclear submarines).

Russia is reducing its strategic nuclear weapons quickly. Interestingly, in the moneyless 1990s Moscow managed to maintain its strategic nuclear potential almost at the same level as it was immediately after the Soviet Union's disintegration; in the 21st century strategic arms are rapidly dwindling even despite a sharp growth in defense expenditures.

Unlike the United States, which has not acquired new strategic carriers for a long time, Russia has been building its mobile, and since the late 1990s, silo-based Topol ICBMs. However, the problem is that the Topol missile has only one warhead, whereas the old Soviet models carried from six to 10 warheads, but they are now being decommissioned as their service life expires.

This means that the number of warheads on sea- and ground-based missiles has been halved in 2000-2007. Russia is trying to upgrade the sea leg of its strategic nuclear arsenal, but the new Bulava SLBM has not passed a single successful test.

Substantial cuts in offensive arms are creating an entirely new military-strategic situation not only in Russian-U.S. relations but also in the world as a whole.


First, with fewer strategic carriers and warheads, the ABM system may prove effective. The current ABM systems - either Russian, or even less so, the half-virtual American - are incapable of parrying a massive nuclear strike. In fact, there is no sense in trying to do this. But a tangible reduction in the number of potential targets may prompt some people to think that the game is worth the candle.

One can invest in the development of a really effective ABM system and first-strike weapons, for example, in conventional high-accuracy systems. The final goal is to create a capability for a disarming first strike (nuclear, non-nuclear or mixed) at the enemy's strategic nuclear potential. ABM will finish off whatever survives the first blow.

To sum up, reduction of offensive arms, lack of restrictions on defensive weapons and rapid development of non-nuclear high accuracy systems may destabilize the world situation.

Second, 35 years ago, either the Soviet or the American potential were many times bigger than the British, French and Chinese nuclear arsenals put together. Now the situation has changed. More countries have nuclear weapons, whereas both Russia and the United States now have fewer carriers and warheads than before. Moreover, only these two countries are bound by a treaty on medium and shorter-range missiles. This makes further bilateral treaties pointless.

Any new nuclear arms reduction agreements should cover all nuclear countries, including unofficial members of the club (Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea). This is a much bigger problem for Russia than for the United States. All other nuclear countries are in Eurasia and the bulk of nuclear weapons are targeted at Russia. China, for instance, has a few ICBMs that can reach America, but many more medium-range missiles that are aimed at Russia and India (maybe, this is how the Moscow-Delhi-Beijing triangle manifests itself).

Today, mutual security requires an entirely new approach but nobody is likely to adopt it. Moreover, the bad situation is getting worse. Having become the world's only leader in the early 1990s, the United States has uprooted a system of international law, thereby inflicting heavy damage on itself. We are watching the demise of the unipolar world. It is not becoming multipolar and is only breeding chaos.

Russia does not have a clear-cut foreign policy concept and is clinging to the old Soviet line in a completely different geopolitical situation. None of the other countries are ready to play first fiddle in world affairs. Under the circumstances, many countries may be tempted to take part in the new race for nuclear missiles and other weapons.

Alexander Khramchikhin heads the analytical department at the Institute of Political and Military Analysis.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Enviado: Seg Jun 18, 2007 8:45 pm
por Penguin
Novidades...

Janes, 11 June 2007
Russia proposes joint defence project with US


EVENT
US President George W Bush described a proposal made by Russian President Vladimir Putin on 7 June that they jointly operate a missile-defence system from a base in Azerbaijan as "interesting".


Putin suggested the two states could jointly operate a missile-defence system from the Gabala radar base in Azerbaijan at a meeting with President Bush during the Group of Eight (G8) summit meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany. This, Putin stated, would allow the development of a system that would not require Russia to re-target its missiles at Europe as he has threatened to do on 3 June if radar and missile interceptor stations are deployed in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Bush's national security adviser Stephan Hadley said that the Russian proposal was a "positive development" and that the issue would be discussed in more detail during talks in Kennebunkport, Maine state, which are scheduled to begin on 1 July.

FORECAST
With the missile-defence system being such an important aspect of Washington's strategic interests, any conditions for the deployment will be stringent and it is likely particular concern would be raised over operating a system the US did not have complete control over.

Enviado: Ter Jun 19, 2007 1:46 pm
por Moccelin
Hehehehehehe... Resolvido o problema... A 3ª Guerra mundial não vai mais acontecer!!! 8-] 8-] 8-]