Are we lying to russia about korea & iran when actually the missile defense is against russia?

Question

Are we lying to russia about korea & iran when actually the missile defense is against russia?

Answer 1

Yes we are. Its an absolute lie. Neither Korea nor Iran have a missile that can reach beyond few hundred miles. Few countries in the world (us. russia, france, uk) have intercontinental missiles, and that's why russia is furious about the missile defense system.  

Answer 2

Okay, we are in the Twenty First century. We know what Russia has and Russia knows what we have. But neither one knows who's got the d**n KEY!

Answer 3

O.K let's check Iran's missile inventory together.

Sahib1 ( convert from Scud-B / Engine Technology given by russians )

can carry 800~kg warhead - 300km range .. 50-300 at the stock

Sahib2 ( convert from Scud-C / Engine Technology given by russians )

can carry 700~kg warhead - 500km range .. 50-150 at the stock

Sahib3 ( know how from N.Korea + Engine technology from russia )

can carry 750~kg warhead - 1.300km range .. 30-100 at the stock

Sahib4 ( still under construction with russian technology )

can carry 1ton~ warhead - 2.000km range .. none at stock

IRIS ( still under construction with chinese technology )

3.000km range.. none at stock

Tinder 69 (CASS8) 150km range , can carry 190kg warhead

Fatah 110 200km range , can carry 150kg~ warhead

Decry-3 MIRV ballistic missile hunter (short range ~150km)

also Iran had some guideable artillery missiles too, like Samid, Sahin II, Nazent, Zelzel-1, Zelzel-2, Zelzel-3 .. and some Katyusa replicas like Fecr-2, Fecr-3, Fecr-5 and Oghab. ( non guideable )

Iran air forces had some surface to air missiles, like Misak-1, Misak-2, Seyyid-1, Sahab Thaqeb's. ( Airplane Hunters )

they try develope the KOSAR ( runner ) missile, kosar one of the member of cruise family. ( surface to surface - sea to sea - air to sea - air to surface .. approx 300km range )

that's all.

They can't reach EU, also N.Korea can't  reach to EU too. If someone said "we build this systems against Iran and/or N.Korea" in my opinion this is bull ****. Iran can shoot Israel, Turkey .. maybe Bulgaria & Romania .. that's all.

If u put those system at Southern Side of Turkey* and/or Israel** .. I can understand that,cuz logical .. but If prefer put it to too north and too far ( coast of baltic sea ) c'mon ... those system against russians, rest is Lie.

Answer 4

<sarcasm imminent>

"O, ya, those 10 unproven missile interceptors are there to shoot down the 5000+ Russian nukes"

uh-huh...

as for why they are where they are, it is because the THAAD system is a midcourse defense--remember, the missiles from Iran head north-northwest, not directly west

the missiles would pass right overhead, perfect for an intercept

also, it isnt just to protect us, but Europe as well

Answer 5

no we are not, but it is a bonus

Answer 6

we'd need a heck of a lot more than 10 missile interceptors for Russia, you think 10 can block thousands?

No this is for Iran and Korea, or any other country that has only 1-10 nukes.

Answer 7

Possible, but it is a defense for NATO countries in europe, since Iran or NorKor would have to come near Poland to get to European countries and U.S. interests in Europe. Don't forget, the NorKor missiles can barely get out into the Pacific if you remember their last tests and Iran still hasn't developed long range ICBMs.  Both can only threaten nearby countries.

Answer 8

Yes, it's all suspicious.

North Korea for example, always considered America and South Korea as its enemy. It never considered Europe as an enemy, nor did it have any dispute with any European nation. If North Korea ever launches any missile, it will be directed towards South Korea, US military bases in Japan, or US interests in Asia. But North Korean missiles targeting Europe?. I doubt it. And what for?. I can't find any logical reason why North Korea would ever want to hit Europe. All past rhetorics and sabre-rattling were mainly between North Korea and the US. And Europe is out of the equation. So, the notion of having missile shields in Europe for the purpose of protecting against North Korean missiles is dubious.

As another argument, when GW Bush proposed to build the missile shields in Europe two years ago, the very nations who were the most likely targets of Iranian missiles (England, France, and Germany) gave their tacit agreement to the proposal, and yet refused to have the missile shields built in their own soil. It is ironic that Poland and the Czech Republic (nations that do not have any interests to protect in the Middle East nor have any dispute or disagreement with Iran) allowed those missile shields to be built on their own soil. It is obvious that these two nations (being strategically located right at Russia's border) weren't really selected for the purpose of countering Iranian threats. They were specifically selected to encircle and lessen Russia's strategic capabilities.

If you spread a map of the world on top of a table, and plot the trajectory of any missile launched anywhere from Iran towards Europe, the missile would hover the airspace over Turkey, Romania, Hungary, Austria, Croatia, or Serbia. The missile shields should have been more appropriate to intercept Iranian missiles when built on any of these countries (while at the same time located far away from Russia's borders). The choice of Poland and the Czech Republic are a bit too far to the north (locations which are indeed viewed by Russia with suspicion).