• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US willing to share Aegis missile tech with Russia - good idea?

Is sharing the Aegis (SM-3) missile systems with Russia a good idea?

  • Yes - it's fine

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • No - it's crazy

    Votes: 13 86.7%
  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15
  • Poll closed .
You think it is "stupid" to be aware that the cold war ended almost 30 years ago now? Uh...
And the Russian's can't change their minds then?
 
And the Russian's can't change their minds then?

Sure, anything is possible. Canada could decide to attack us tomorrow. But that certainly isn't the likeliest scenario to worry about. The scenario of a Russian nuke getting stolen is infinitely more of a threat. I'm starting to suspect some of you guys saw Red Dawn too many times growing up...
 
Yes... You're not exactly a history buff eh? Many people say the main reason we dropped atomic bombs on Japan was to warn off the USSR. Some of our generals wanted to continue WWII by attacking the USSR.

What people say that? I am in fact a history buff and i have never heard anything like that. Why exactly would we give the USSR nuclear technology if they are the ones we were warning off in the first place? Granted the US was wary of them from the beginning, but i fail to see the logic in giving them the very technology that we were trying to warn them with in the first place? And im pretty sure the main reason we dropped the a bomb on Japan was because we were at war with them...

So even in your anti-Russian mentality, you would rather they have NUKES than DEFENSIVE missiles? Uh....
They already have nukes and they arent going to give them all up, so its not an issue of "what would i rather".
 
They've reduced their arsenal by almost 97% so far, so yeah, I don't see any reason they won't continue. They won't go to zero I assume, but the risk is proportional to the number of nukes they have. 2,000 means many more facilities, personnel, transportation operations, etc, that could lead to a weapon being leaked than if they have a smaller number.

Their biggest concern is that they don't want to give up the deterrence that nukes give them, same reason we don't want to give ours up. Giving them defensive technology that meets the same need in exchange for agreements to give up more nukes makes a lot of sense both for them and for us IMO.

The logistical problem your describing is RUSSIA'S problem. They would most likely reduce their arsenal on their own if given the chance, but they have learned that if they put up a front, then the suckers in the USA will give them all kinds of treats in exchange for something they would have done anyway. Its in their own best interest to downsize. It was overkill to ever have that many nukes in the first place. The only reason they did was because they were trying to prove how much stronger they were than America. They could get rid of 99.9% of their arsenal and still be able to nuke the entire planet.

You keep calling this DEFENSIVE technology, but in reality its a cutting edge missile system. How hard do you think it would be to take a defensive missile and retask it with a nuclear warhead? Not very.
 
No, because that's a fact. Our primary concern, by far, is that none of the Russian nukes slip into the hands of terrorists. So being able to inspect them and count them and check out the security and hold them accountable for all of them and make sure they're complying with all the agreements and whatnot is crucial.

You make it sound as if Russia is the only source of nuclear material that terrorists would target? There are far easier targets they would go after first. North Korea for example has nuclear tech and they dont exactly have warm fuzzies when it comes to America and their allies. Pakistan has nukes, as well as israel (unconfirmed), and Iran is openly persuing the tech, and possibly already has it. Even if Russia got rid of every single nuke and started exporting teddy bears, it would not go very far to make America safer.
 
theoretically it is possible that some day we'll be launching ICBMs at Russia, although that is pretty far fetched, and they'll be able to block them because they have this defense system... It's 10,000 more likely that we'll face a threat from a soviet era nuclear bomb that was smuggled out of Russia. That's the real threat.

So we should only be prepared for one threat at a time? We can focus on the threat of terrorism, but then we cant focus on any other possible threats?
 
What people say that? I am in fact a history buff and i have never heard anything like that.

Patton for one.

Why exactly would we give the USSR nuclear technology if they are the ones we were warning off in the first place? Granted the US was wary of them from the beginning, but i fail to see the logic in giving them the very technology that we were trying to warn them with in the first place?

You're confused. We aren't giving them nuclear technology. The Aegis system is not nuclear, it is an anti-missle defense system from the 90s. The reason we're giving it to them is in exchange for them agreeing to reduce their stockpile of nukes.

You keep calling this DEFENSIVE technology, but in reality its a cutting edge missile system. How hard do you think it would be to take a defensive missile and retask it with a nuclear warhead? Not very.

Aegis isn't a missile, it's a technology we use on boats to detect the exact location of incoming missiles. Then we just fire any standard surface to air missile at them. Regardless, the idea that Russia would somehow gain by trying to adapt a surface to air missile for use to deliver nukes is silly. They have ICBMs with rages like 8,000 miles and whatnot. A surface to air missile like we use with Aegis only have a range of like 80 miles. A surface to air missile is much smaller than an ICBM. Etc. But, again, Aegis isn't the missile technology, it's the detection technology.

You make it sound as if Russia is the only source of nuclear material that terrorists would target? There are far easier targets they would go after first. North Korea for example has nuclear tech and they dont exactly have warm fuzzies when it comes to America and their allies. Pakistan has nukes, as well as israel (unconfirmed), and Iran is openly persuing the tech, and possibly already has it.

You should read up on it a bit. Russia had thousands of nukes at one point and has basically lost track of quite a few of them that nobody knows where they are. Places like North Korea have like 1 bomb that they are never going to part with in a million years. Lost or stolen Russian nukes is most definitely our biggest worry at the moment in terms of terrorists.

So we should only be prepared for one threat at a time? We can focus on the threat of terrorism, but then we cant focus on any other possible threats?

No, but when the threats come up against one another we certainly give priority to the more likely one. In this case the threat from terrorism is far more likely than the threat of a war with Russia. And, regardless, this deal would DECREASE the threat of a war with Russia. Less nukes and more defensive tech makes them LESS of a threat...
 
"No...it's crazy".

Bad idea.

We're sharing technology with a state that has a history of sharing it's technology with enemies of our country? It's ridiculous. Russia is not a freaking ally.
 
What these two nations should be doing is sharing knowledge.
 
What these two nations should be doing is sharing knowledge.

And what knowledge does Russia have to share with us? They havent made any technological breakthroughs that have made news in my lifetime... Also, sharing knowledge, and sharing military technology, be it defensive or offensive, are two different things.
 
Patton for one.

Source please..

You're confused. We aren't giving them nuclear technology. The Aegis system is not nuclear, it is an anti-missle defense system from the 90s. The reason we're giving it to them is in exchange for them agreeing to reduce their stockpile of nukes.

Im refering to the end of WWII when we were the only ones with nuclear technology, and we gave it to our "Allies". We gave nuclear technology to Russia and Britain. We have regretted it with Russia ever since.

Aegis isn't a missile, it's a technology we use on boats to detect the exact location of incoming missiles. Then we just fire any standard surface to air missile at them. Regardless, the idea that Russia would somehow gain by trying to adapt a surface to air missile for use to deliver nukes is silly. They have ICBMs with rages like 8,000 miles and whatnot. A surface to air missile like we use with Aegis only have a range of like 80 miles. A surface to air missile is much smaller than an ICBM. Etc. But, again, Aegis isn't the missile technology, it's the detection technology.

That is also incorrect... While part of the system is used for detecting ballistic missiles, not just any surface to air missile can be used to intercept it. They have to be compatible to that system as well as capable of intercepting an ICBM. Are we only giving Russia the radar portion of that technology? Do they already posses a missile that can intercept an ICBM? If so, why do they need us? Whether they use the system to deliver nukes or not, it can easily be used to shoot down say a fighter jet, in place of a ballistic missile.


You should read up on it a bit. Russia had thousands of nukes at one point and has basically lost track of quite a few of them that nobody knows where they are. Places like North Korea have like 1 bomb that they are never going to part with in a million years. Lost or stolen Russian nukes is most definitely our biggest worry at the moment in terms of terrorists.

And how many have been used? Ever? In the world? If they are in the hands of terrorists, why havent they been used? And do we really have ANY idea how many nukes North Korea has? Have they let anyone come take a look recently? Would they tell us if they did? Not to say that the nukes in Russia are not a potential danger, i dont agree that giving them military tech in exchange for getting rid of some is a good idea.

No, but when the threats come up against one another we certainly give priority to the more likely one. In this case the threat from terrorism is far more likely than the threat of a war with Russia. And, regardless, this deal would DECREASE the threat of a war with Russia. Less nukes and more defensive tech makes them LESS of a threat...

As cited above, giving technology to Russia has proven NOT to be a deterent to aggression.
 
Last edited:
Guys, what we're talking about is only the SM-3 (Standard Missile 3) and not the entire Aegis system. So it's not as horrific as it sounds. The SM-3 is not an effective interceptor for ICBMs. It IS too slow for that. The SM-3 has a max speed of roughly Mach 7.8, while a boosting ICBM has a burnout speed of Mach 20.57 and warhead reentry speed of Mach 11.75. In order for effective intercepts, and interceptor must be at least as fast as the target, ideally much faster. The SM-3 could be used effective against medium-range missiles - very effective against crude systems like the Russian SCUDs - but would be only a desperation move against the latest ICBMs.

A lot depends on which block (version) and what specific details they want to give. If we provide info on the Block I, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Block II info? I'm starting not to like it. If we're on the cusp of producing something far better (which I think is likely) even Block II info might not be too bad.
Raytheon RIM-161 Standard SM-3

Still, I am opposed to it. Russia must never be confused to be our friend. They are not now, and it could easily get worse in the future. If the data is innocuous enough (performance parameters only) and newer models are ready for the fleet, then it might be acceptable. But with what I can easily lookup on the internet (obviously unclassified) I would say no.
 
Source please..

Just google "patton invade ussr"...

Im refering to the end of WWII when we were the only ones with nuclear technology, and we gave it to our "Allies". We gave nuclear technology to Russia and Britain. We have regretted it with Russia ever since.

Er what? Where did you hear that? I've never heard anything like that. Do you have a source?

Soviet atomic bomb project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is also incorrect... While part of the system is used for detecting ballistic missiles, not just any surface to air missile can be used to intercept it. They have to be compatible to that system as well as capable of intercepting an ICBM. Are we only giving Russia the radar portion of that technology? Do they already posses a missile that can intercept an ICBM? If so, why do they need us? Whether they use the system to deliver nukes or not, it can easily be used to shoot down say a fighter jet, in place of a ballistic missile.

No, no, no... The clever innovation of Aegis is the ability to pinpoint the incoming missiles. Surface to air missiles have existed for decades. That's nothing new. We just use our normal surface to air missiles with it, not any specialized missile.

And how many have been used? Ever? In the world? If they are in the hands of terrorists, why havent they been used? And do we really have ANY idea how many nukes North Korea has? Have they let anyone come take a look recently? Would they tell us if they did? Not to say that the nukes in Russia are not a potential danger, i dont agree that giving them military tech in exchange for getting rid of some is a good idea.

Just read up on it. It's too big of a topic to try to go through with you here.
 
Last edited:
Aegis is just a missile DEFENSE system, it's not an offensive weapon.
That is like saying that a handgun is a defensive system. The reality is that it can be used defensively or offensively.

For instance, it can be used to shoot down a passenger airliner with 290 people on board.
 
Last edited:
That is like saying that a handgun is a defensive system. The reality is that it can be used defensively or offensively.

For instance, it can be used to shoot down a passenger airliner with 290 passengers on board.

Why would you need Aegis to shoot down a passenger airliner? You can just do that with a surface to air missile... Aegis wouldn't be involved. Aegis is needed for shooting down missiles because missiles move really fast. You don't need anything like that just to shoot down a plane.
 
Military tech should never be shared with other countries.Nor should be we selling or giving military equipment to other countries.If history has taught us anything is that friends can become enemies really quick and we do not be basically arming our future enemies.

Military tech is shared freely with the US govt and it's our enemy.
 
The USA is the largest arms dealer in the world. If you're gonna be an arms dealer, you have to have arms to sell. It would also be good business to start wars to drum up business. If you can sell a few of these to the right spot, can you gin up a war and a little uptick in sales.
 
And what knowledge does Russia have to share with us? They havent made any technological breakthroughs that have made news in my lifetime...

TVC (Thrust vector control) was first used on the Russian Su-37 prototype before it were incorporated into US designs (F-35 and F-22).

Also, sharing knowledge, and sharing military technology, be it defensive or offensive, are two different things.

The US doesn't need to share anything w/Russia or China for those two countries to have it, because they're completely adept at stealing US technology.
 
TVC (Thrust vector control) was first used on the Russian Su-37 prototype before it were incorporated into US designs (F-35 and F-22).

Did Russia give us that technology?

The US doesn't need to share anything w/Russia or China for those two countries to have it, because they're completely adept at stealing US technology.

Agreed but that is a different issue entirley. China stole our stealth tech just recently.
 
Why would you need Aegis to shoot down a passenger airliner? You can just do that with a surface to air missile... Aegis wouldn't be involved. Aegis is needed for shooting down missiles because missiles move really fast. You don't need anything like that just to shoot down a plane.

Muhammed is referring to when the USS Vincennes shot down Iranian airliner flight 655 in 1988. It was purely accidental and a lot of the details are still hotly debated.

The SM-3 is designed for shooting down aircraft. That is it's primary purpose. It's not very good for shooting down ICBMs which is what Russia is concerned about. Obama is considering giving info on the SM-3 to allay their fears and help missile shield negotiations.
 
Why would you need Aegis to shoot down a passenger airliner? You can just do that with a surface to air missile... Aegis wouldn't be involved. Aegis is needed for shooting down missiles because missiles move really fast. You don't need anything like that just to shoot down a plane.
Actually it is designed to guide SAMs into planes.

Just ask the people on flight 655.
 
Why would you need Aegis to shoot down a passenger airliner? You can just do that with a surface to air missile... Aegis wouldn't be involved. Aegis is needed for shooting down missiles because missiles move really fast. You don't need anything like that just to shoot down a plane.

How about a fighter jet?
 
TVC (Thrust vector control) was first used on the Russian Su-37 prototype before it were incorporated into US designs (F-35 and F-22).
TVC (Thrust vector control) was first used on the British Hawker Siddeley Harrier in 1967. The Russians first tried to copy it on the Yak-38 (with poor results) and later got a better result on the Su-27. The Su-37 is employing using TVC 19 years after introduced in the Su-27
 
Muhammed is referring to when the USS Vincennes shot down Iranian airliner flight 655 in 1988. It was purely accidental and a lot of the details are still hotly debated.

The SM-3 is designed for shooting down aircraft. That is it's primary purpose. It's not very good for shooting down ICBMs which is what Russia is concerned about. Obama is considering giving info on the SM-3 to allay their fears and help missile shield negotiations.

Actually, my understanding is that the SM-3 was designed specifically for shooting down missiles. A bunch of countries have the SM-3: Israel, Japan, Poland, Romania, South Korea, etc.

Some ships have that, most have the older SM-2 which was designed for shooting down aircraft. They both work fine with Aegis. The SM-2 is just a plain old surface to air missile like any other. It is 30 years old now. It comes from way before Aegis was invented. Russia most definitely has surface to air missiles more sophisticated than that now. Probably a dozen countries in the world sell surface to air missiles that sophisticated or better and virtually every country owns surface to air missiles that sophisticated or better.

What Russia is after here isn't the missile, it's the Aegis system that pinpoints the incoming missile and whatnot. The missiles are nothing special or secret. A bunch of countries have Aegis too: the Netherlands, South Korea, Japan, the UK, etc. But that is the more unique technology and Russia doesn't have it or any equivalent currently. But that tech is purely defensive, so it's safe to use it as a bargaining chip.

But, yeah, you raise a good point. One of the reasons Obama wants to share anti-missile tech with Russia is to defuse concerns that the US might be deploying anti-missile tech because once it has a missile shield up it can start threatening the world with it's nukes without worrying about retaliation. That's a silly fear. The anti-missile systems are nowhere near reliable enough to do anything like that and ICBMs aren't the only way to deliver a nuke. But, whatever, if it makes Russia less jittery about it, that's a big plus.
 
Just google "patton invade ussr"...

I was requesting a source that says the use of the Atomic bomb on the japanese was a warning to the USSR more than a method of ending the war.

Er what? Where did you hear that? I've never heard anything like that. Do you have a source?

After the two bombs were dropped over japan, president truman informed Stalin of their research into nuclear technology (up to that point only the US and Britain were involved in its development). Stalin was already aware of their progress because he had spies who kept him informed throughout the entire process... as a show of cooperation truman gave stalin the tech publicly since he already had it. Kind of a PR campaign but still. Thats all available on wikipedia.


No, no, no... The clever innovation of Aegis is the ability to pinpoint the incoming missiles. Surface to air missiles have existed for decades. That's nothing new. We just use our normal surface to air missiles with it, not any specialized missile.
A normal surface to air missile does not have the capability to intercept an ICBM
 
Back
Top Bottom