From: Ad 

Robert Comer wrote:
>> Why? Israel has knocked out Russian crewed radar & intel stations in
>> Syria before.
>
> That's Israel and they have a big friend.


Not that big a friend.

> Iran's big friend is
> Russia, so ...
>
The Russians are much better at accepting body bags than we weak westerners...

>> I think Putin's idea would be that the next radar is the BMEWS line e.g.
>> Fylingdales.
>
> ?
>

BMEWS = the existing Ballistic Missile Early Warning System. The closest of
which is just round the rigg head from me.

>> It's in the caucasus/kavkaz. A region given it's name by the caucasus
>> mountains wot are mountainous.
>
> That's what I thought, mountainous is the easiest terrain to defend.
>

Not against TFR missiles. There you'd be best off with open desert.

i.e. if you fly in a tfr (terrain following radar (but also could be
lazer)) i.e. close to the ground path then you'd always have some nice
chunk of solid stuff twixt detector & radar.

>> They had a radar base in Cuba too. If the PRC put a Radar station in
>> northern Mexico you'd be concerned. If they put in a radar station with
>> a layered defense then I think that concern might rise to apoplectic.
>
> It wouldn't make strategic sense to put one there, it certainly
> couldn't stop us from attacking china with ICBM's, but yeah, we'd
> worry a bit because we wouldn't know what else they might be doing.

Huh? Why wouldn't it? It would give great sight into your interior where
missile silos tend to be (e.g. the dakotas). If tied to interceptors it
could well allow for "boost phase interception" which is by far
the best as then any nasties tend to drop onto the launching country's
territory.

However layered defence is often....offensive in more ways than one. e.g.
S400 missiles just south of the US mexcian border would put a huge chunk of
the US South west airspace into ....question

> We'd target the place with bigger than just cruise missile probably,
> but I expect any military power to target things like that if they are
> close.
>

Indeed.

>> Hum. So were you to have a similar base in oh let's see....Guam
>> or....Japan & also a few ships with modified SAM & Aegis
then would the
>> PRC & India get concerned?
>
> I think Japan already has them, don't know about Guam.
>

Were one to be a PRC (or an India) & were one to see these sites
cropping up around one, one might be forced into "national defensive
measures" e.g. massive proliferation e.g. going from say 20-50
delivery vehicles/warheads into the thousands.


Given the US/West has been pushing a mostly self-serving
"anti-proliferation" agenda it looks a
little......self-defeating.

>> Not entirely true. They are working on their mil esp their navy (e.g.
>> introducing SSN & a new aircraft carrier) & their strategic rocket
>> forces....I mean space program.
>
> Still way behind...
>

A H bomb is an H bomb. Oddly the PRC, Russia, India etc might be better
placed to survive a nuclear war than the US.


>> Well my feeling is that the nuclear arms treaties are dead anyway (all
>> of them inc the NPT) & that we should simply gird ourselves for the fall
>> out.
>
> Assured destruction is a pretty big deterrent for the small guys and
> MAD is a pretty big deterrent for us big guys...
>

Yeah but it works both ways. What this is is an invite for the world to
nuclearize as it's now becoming clear that the NPT & it's ilk were
never serious treaties anyway.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5