American SM-3 ballistic missile site in Poland by 2018

beating up tiny georgia is a whole different ballgame to taking on poland
the difference is that russia is surrounded in the west by nato
kaliningrad wouldnt last long against a polish lithuanian offensive


unlikely
with nato being the way it is
a total block on russian exports would cripple russia overnight
they are just way too dependent on western markets to cope

imagine if the west stopped paying for gas?
even a week would paralyse russia


he should ask himself why hes the former deputy minister for defence while komorowski has the backing of 69% of society


how did komorowski lie about his nobility? dont tell me you believe that rubbish about him being actually a russian

sorry
but i believe in real threats
not imagined ones

Indeed America also declined to nuke Moscow, something to do with the Georgians starting the war and them being slightly mad in expecting the West to fight on its behalf for a very suspect issue.

It does however show that the USA will not defend Poland from Russia, something the dozy politicians in Poland have come to realise. There is a British response plan, but nothing much


There is nothing right about supplying non-functioning missiles though.

Because the then acting defense minister Komorowski, his superior, pressed to fire him, did back him up against those fake accusations and now his career is over. Szeremietiew a man who knows a hell of alot more on the military than Komorowski. Komorowski was but in by his superiors, friends, not for his competence.


Haha, I think Szeremietiew is the one who is of Russian ancestry, that surname is very popular in Russia. Yet he was a loyal supporter of Solidarity during communist times, served 5 years in prison during that period.

If the intention of your ally was as it is advertised the ally would share technology without demanding to be men by their own, speaking within the frame work of NATO of course, not demanding payment for it either.


Speaks a great deal to the character of who you deal with, what makes you think that second time around it would be any different? Backstabber is just that, he just can’t help himself.


Ask me if I care.


What’s the matter? Can’t handle the truth?

The simple fact is you do not represent Poland. You need to get with the future.
So many of you nationalist dinosaurs are locked in the past...

This
wll just increase russian efforts to get poland in their sphere of influence. Germany and Russia are pretty close now with the construction of nordstream. It won't happen in the next 10 years but surely america will become less relevant in eastern europe.

I sure hope so.

So how much will they pay in rent annually ?

Progressive forward looking individuals like yourself always latch on the coattails of those that are stronger for various reasons which they justify with the word “get with the future “ to make themselves appear as visionaries but without exception they always end up in the same trap, they make themselves willing vassals in the process instead of masters of their own destiny. Out of their laziness they willingly subjugate themselves to others instead of working hard to make their country stronger, sooner or later they are left up the creek without a paddle. There’s a not so flattering word to describe those progressive types, so what makes you think that being defined as a nationalist is somehow a dirty word?


Don’t fool yourself, neither do you but I'm willing to bet they are even smaller minority then the so called dinosaurs.

Is that even means anything?

It's a lot easier to fight armored divisions for a modern, professional army like the US then a guerrilla warfare not knowing who the enemy is, or having them attack then hide in tunnels in high mountains. In a straight normal conflict, I don't think any nation has a chance with America.

Probably correct.

The only one that would give me pause is China. As the Russians quipped, "Quantity has a quality all it's own." Fortunately, both sides are held at bay by the realities of a cross-ocean war. I doubt either could win if they tried to actually invade the other without benefit of some combination of odd alliances. The supply tail is just too long.

China would use the Soviet tactic of huge swarms of troops and tanks (mostly outdated). A single US M1 Abrams tank could easily deal with 5-10 Chinese tanks. As for the troops, inexperienced conscripts, huge American air power and artillery would take care of them. During the Vietnam War Nixon who obviously had more balls then Johnson wasn't afraid of Chinese or Soviet response and started a massive bombing campaign of the North. Linebacker I and II, was devastating North Vietnamese air force and air defenses were obliterated, power stations, oil depots, rail lines, bridges the North Vietnamese were close to pushing for peace but by that time support for the war was completely gone it was too late, Americans wanted out. The Soviets applied a good tactic for masses of Chinese troops during their border conflict of 1969, which I believe was fought over one tiny island on a river. The Soviet put dozens of Shilka 23mm AA guns and fired them on the Chinese troops causing heavy casualties.

I think you overestimate the effectiveness of our military in general [for this scenario] and the matter of supplying deployed troops directly onto an invasion point in particular. Unlike Vietnam, we would have no friendly ports closer than Korea or Japan. The Chinese Navy, Air Force and Army is huge and growing, ours is downsizing (especially since Homeland Security absorbed the Coast Guard) and has just come off 10+ years of high-utilization deployment. The military supply situation was workable thanks to Turkey and Kyrgyzstan and our control of the Persian Gulf. Trying to invade into China would be a nightmare far beyond planning and supplying the Normandy invasion. Even Normandy was jammed up on the beaches and running short of supply until they broke out from the beachheads. The Chinese would see us coming [literally] a thousand miles off. Neither side has the ability to maintain that sort of supply tail across the Pacific Ocean.

One thing to keep in mind in an evident full scale conflict with China the draft would be introduced just like in Vietnam. The Chinese have only a few hundred (500) tanks comparable to the US M1 Abrams, 200 4th generation fighters, a few dozen modern surface vessels and submarines. Only one aircraft carrier!!! Only 2 dozen ICBSs capable of reaching the US, on 2 Ballistic missile submarines. 100 billion dollar budget. Overall the US has 10x more modern weapons. The US carrier force alone would easily defeat the Chinese Air Force.

We don't agree. I believe neither side could carry it off for the reasons stated.

Forget about conventional forces in a hypothetical armed conflict between China and the USA. The very moment the Chinese realize that they've lost the war, they would use nukes and then ... bye-bye west coast.

Not anymore really... besides, they are making big progress each year, in 10 years USA will have huge problems winning a conflict in Asia fighting the Chinese...

The US carriers would probably defeat the Chinese airforce quite easily. However they have and are developing anti-ship missiles that could potential wipe out the US navy - how effective they are is a bit unknown but it doesn't look promising.

No chance of beating China on land and not much point of trying. Whats to gain?

Quite true. We're also downsizing the carrier fleet (we're down to 10 now) and you can't send ALL the carriers to one theater of operations. On the other hand, CHina has ALL of their aircraft, ships and military at home. Imagine trying to take the troops out of South Korea, strip Afric and NATO clean and empty all the American bases. Then there's the whole bit about fuel, munitions and protection from missiles. When you're firing from your home base it's a whole lot easier to reload than when you have to have a chain of ships bringing them across the world's largest ocean.

The other part you need to think through in an invasion is how many troops would actually have a seat on the planes and ships trying to get here, how many would make it and how many bullets, missiles, toilet paper and replacements it takes to destroy the fighting power of 1.3B people. We have about 2 dozen Amphibious warfare ships. If you put ALL of them in one spot and landed every person possible without any causalities you might have 2 divisions ashore. We have 2 Airborne Light Infantry Divisions (as in lightly armed). Assuming for a minute we have the airlift to drop them from across the Pacific, how long can 40,000 last against the PLA plus their paramilitary police forces while you race back for more soldiers, fuel, heavy equipment, bullets, artillery shells, etc.?

I doubt the Chinese could get as far as Hawaii with an intact force but, if they did manage to take it they would be in no shape to continue on across to the West Coast.

Honestly, I'd say we would find it much easier to fight and defeat the Russians than the Chinese.

HAHA, the US has hundreds of ICMBs in silos, on submarines, not 10 or 20 like China. Aegis with SM-3, THAAD, Patriot triple protection would surely hit most of them before hiting the west coast. Americas response with its huge nuclear arsenal would leave China as a radioactive wasteland. Anti ship missiles so what? there are anti- anti ship missiles and Phalanx systems on US surface ships capable of dealing with them. Even though I'm sure it would be much more costly a D Day like invasion would probably succeed. China looks economically impressive on a whole, per capita Poles are twice as wealthy. With a 700 billion dollar annual US military budget I don't see the Chinese being a major treat in the near future. This is a country which still largely relies on Russia for military arms and technology.

Convenient that you never had a major war to test this since defeating the Germans. Bombing third world countries does not count. I have an hunch that if war with a real opponent were to brake out most western armies would fold like a pack of sheep, including your precious "Army Strong"

Don't know. According to this web site, China has about 240 nukes. You only need a tiny fraction of them - say 5 in total - to make it to the west coast, and Seattle, Portland, San Franciso, San Diego and LA would be gone.

ploughshares.org/world-nuclear-stockpile-report

You have to be kidding. Seriously.

America is extremely well prepared - to fight World War II.

Unfortunately this is World War III coming up. Naval carriers are a great way to provide superb calibration targets for the enemies' cruise missiles and not much else.

I've been paid good money to prove this in simulation. It's a subject I know something about. I'm not the world's greatest authority, but if he were here he'd tell you the same thing I am telling you. I know the man and basically he goes around telling anybody who will listen the same thing for around $30,000 a presentation.

The following information is public access and does not violate any NDA I may have signed concerning any work.

Traversal rates on modern anti-missile systems are too slow to stop any missile designed before the 1970's. Identification and response rates vary from time of impact to two minutes before impact at best case, with neither figure affecting the fact that naval carrier will be bottom trawling with Jaqque Cousteau in ten minutes either way.

Conclusion, demonstrated by analysis and simulation in real time, is that all American naval carriers will be coral garden starters within 30 minutes of any start of hostilities with any modern military power. All. Naval. Carriers. You know those big impressive boats the U.S. goes everywhere in that so impress third world people and other non-relevant combatants? Well, they will all end up as homes for sea urchins and moray eels and ceased to be anything but death warrants after the early 1990's.

THINK ABOUT IT, WON'T YOU?


... and since estimates now place Chinese capacity at 120+ nuclear tipped cruise missiles a month rolling off their assembly lines, it is fair to say that total deliverable megatonnage surpassed U.S. capacity back at the turn of the century. If we further deduct from U.S. stores those stocks which have become unreliable or aged to where they are simply pending decommissioning, it is fair to say that China has a 3-to-1 missile gap over the U.S. at this time which is growing by the month. Also remember these aren't sh*tty little ICBMs with vacuum tubes and 1970's Intel/Radio shack components, rather state of the art nuclear cruise missile traveling at hypersonic speeds 20x the velocity of sound with supercomputers on board capable of millisecond windows of course correction, avoidance behaviors and extremely narrow turning radius which makes them virtually impossible to track on radar. Most radar screens the tube will just be warming up when the missile comes through the window and does a 40 kiloton on your face in tandem with 10 other similar cruise missiles synchronized to burst at the same time, creating many magnitudes of overpressure within a certain range than most conventional nuclear weapons ever could.

As for the U.S., remember we are talking about a bunch of po-faced shameful morons who couldn't even coordinate the delivery of fresh water to the Katrina survivors on their own soil a month after the event. These kids are not the men their fathers were and the weapons their fathers built for them are starting to look pretty long in the tooth.

Those 240 are largely tactical nuclear bombs of lower destructive power. Few kilotons at best, something that would be used on small cities or army brigades, divisions. You need ICBMs to hit the mainland United States, and like I said the Chinese have just 2 dozen of those. The US has 450 ICBMs, and 288 SLBM on submarines with hundreds of cruise missiles like Tomahawk which can be armed with nuclear warheads and fired from ships.


A months?? I'd like a link stating this. Plus as I said before a cruise missile is a short range weapon.

I basically said the same thing.

Maybe some of the missile defenses the US is developing might help but you don't mention the Rail guns which are coming along and may make a significant difference.

But the USN's missiles defenses have looked far better on on paper that in practice and on paper they look woeful.

The Phalanx for instance has successfully failed to defend against a missile attack at every attempt. 100% failure...

So, yes, if the USN attacked China today, they would get wiped out.

I don't think so in the very least. 10 aircraft carriers plus 2 more under construction, Chinese 1. If naval strike missiles were so effective the US wouldn't be spending billion on air craft carriers.

You do understand that when those two are built, two get retired? Ten is the new target number for operational carrier groups and you have to factor in their maintenance schedules.

Also, you don't seem to understand that the US is down-sizing and cutting spending while the PLA is growing rapidly in all areas. Here's a partial assessment of the impact on the Army alone:

Army: 78% Of Combat Brigades Will Skip Training Due To Sequester, CR

defense.aol.com/2013/02/05/army-sequester-cr-mean-78-of-brigades-must-skip-training

Note the comments about bringing stuff home and getting it repaired for re-issue. We are about to go the route of the British military and drop drastically in size

and capability.

On top of everything else, these shutdowns and force level drops are going to have an impact on the unemployment rate, welfare outlays, severe impact on certain local economies and the general morale of the military.

You don't seam to understand that it will not catch up in the next one or two years but maybe 20! Even if the pentagon reduces its budget from 700 to 600 billion it's still several times more than China's. Most 70% of Chinese equipment it total trash! remembering the 60s and 70s, cheaply constructed Soviet copies. There's no comparing it to American firepower. This is what the PLAs General Chen Bingde said ""Although China's defense and military development has come a long way in recent years, a gaping gap between you and us remains," Chen said through an interpreter. He added, "China never intends to challenge the U.S."

Chen made a similar point later at a Pentagon news conference with his American counterpart, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen.

"I can tell you that China does not have the capability to challenge the United States," he said, adding that China's wealth and military strength pales in comparison with that of the U.S. He said China's navy is 20 years behind the U.S. Navy." I'm sure he didn't tell all the truth, but more or less he is correct.

Cool, we don't agree.