• 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 .
Muhammed said:
Actually it is designed to guide SAMs into planes.

Just ask the people on flight 655.
Click to expand...

No, that is completely false. The full name of the system is "Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System"... It was designed by the DoD's "Missile Defense Agency"...

Dpetty said:
How about a fighter jet?
Click to expand...

Sure, you can shoot down fighter jets with normal surface to air missiles. That's what the US would use to do it- their usual surface to air missile system, not Aegis.
 
Dpetty said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok. It isn't like the president declared that it was a warning to the Soviets or something, that's just what most commentators and historians say was the reason we did it. I've heard that dozens of times on documentaries and in articles and whatnot. For that one I would recommend googling "hiroshima warning ussr"

Dpetty said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, so you answered your own question then- we didn't give them anything they didn't already have. I am not familiar with the incident, so I don't know anything else about it.

Dpetty said:
A normal surface to air missile does not have the capability to intercept an ICBM
Click to expand...

Yeah it does. In fact until recently the only SAM we used with Aegis was the SM-2. The SM-2 is just the standard surface to air missile that we happened to already have deployed on our boats. It was from the 80s.

What a normal surface to air missile does not have the capability to do by itself is pinpoint the incoming ICBM and calculate exactly where it will be in X seconds precisely enough. Any surface to air missile can be told "go to these exact coordinates and blow up", it's getting those coordinates right that is the tough part. That's what Aegis does.
 
Dpetty said:
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.. knowledge is knowledge, nevertheless... and, the cold war is over ! .
Click to expand...
Like it or not, Russia is one of the ten most advanced nations on this planet.
Did we ever trouble ourselves to ask them about Afghanistan ?
 
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't knock the SM-2 too hard. It's an excellent system, one of the very best out there. And the SM-2 was specifically designed to operate with Aegis. The SM-1 is 30 years old. The SM-2ER Block IV is only 12 years old.
RIM-67 Standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The second generation of Standard missile, the Standard Missile 2, was developed for the Aegis combat system,
Click to expand...

And check out the link in OP again. Obama is NOT planning to give up Aegis, he's planning on sharing specs (not the specific technology) of the SM-3. The Russians may want Aegis tech, but that's not part of the deal.
 
Last edited:
EagleAye said:
Don't knock the SM-2 too hard. It's an excellent system, one of the very best out there. And the SM-2 was specifically designed to operate with Aegis. The SM-1 is 30 years old. The SM-2ER Block IV is only 12 years old.
RIM-67 Standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Ah, you're right. I was reading the stuff on the SM-1.

EagleAye said:
And check out the link in OP again. Obama is NOT planning to give up Aegis, he's planning on sharing specs (not the specific technology) of the SM-3. The Russians may want Aegis tech, but that's not part of the deal.
Click to expand...

Just the specs!?! What's the hoopla about then? Countries like Romania have the actual SM-2 missiles... So this hype is just purely a Washington Times creation. Again.... Never believe the moonie rag!
 
teamosil said:
Yeah it does. In fact until recently the only SAM we used with Aegis was the SM-2. The SM-2 is just the standard surface to air missile that we happened to already have deployed on our boats. It was from the 80s.
Click to expand...

The SM-2 is a group of weapons, medium to long range. As you said they are old technology, not what is currently in use by the United states. What we use now is the SM-3 which is capable of taking out satellites in low earth orbit. This is not a normal surface to air missile. Is this tech being included in this package given to Russia?
 
Dpetty said:
The SM-2 is a group of weapons, medium to long range. As you said they are old technology, not what is currently in use by the United states. What we use now is the SM-3 which is capable of taking out satellites in low earth orbit. This is not a normal surface to air missile. Is this tech being included in this package given to Russia?
Click to expand...

Actually EagleAye just pointed out something obvious we've all been missing. Obama isn't even talking about sharing the actual tech with Russia, just the specs. As in- how fast does it go, how precise is it, etc... So it's a total non-issue... Just the Washington Times trying to manufacture scandals as usual.
 
Dpetty said:
The SM-2 is a group of weapons, medium to long range. As you said they are old technology, not what is currently in use by the United states. What we use now is the SM-3 which is capable of taking out satellites in low earth orbit. This is not a normal surface to air missile. Is this tech being included in this package given to Russia?
Click to expand...

Saw a documentary about the satellite shoot down. This capability isn't standard with the SM-3. Production versions are not setup for attacking satellites. The US had an out of control satellite with toxic fuel on board that was going to re-enter. They couldn't be sure where it would land so they wanted to destroy it before it could. The team modified a few SM-3 systems and rewrote a lot of Aegis code in 6 weeks (normally would take 2 years) just for this one shootdown. Afterwards the old Aegis code was re-installed and the missiles converted back to original configuration.
 
EagleAye said:
Saw a documentary about the satellite shoot down. This capability isn't standard with the SM-3. Production versions are not setup for attacking satellites. The US had an out of control satellite with toxic fuel on board that was going to re-enter. They couldn't be sure where it would land so they wanted to destroy it before it could. The team modified a few SM-3 systems and rewrote a lot of Aegis code in 6 weeks (normally would take 2 years) just for this one shootdown. Afterwards the old Aegis code was re-installed and the missiles converted back to original configuration.
Click to expand...

Sorry, what i was saying is it has the range and programming capability to take down a satellite in low earth orbit. The military does not consider it a ASAT.
 
teamosil said:
Actually EagleAye just pointed out something obvious we've all been missing. Obama isn't even talking about sharing the actual tech with Russia, just the specs. As in- how fast does it go, how precise is it, etc... So it's a total non-issue... Just the Washington Times trying to manufacture scandals as usual.
Click to expand...

Well... I suppose there is a limit to that kind of talk that I would consider acceptable. As long as we arent giving up any trade secrects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom