&host=www.rt.com&uri=/news/sci-tech/club-k-missile-systems/comments/&via=1.1 8.254.9.149:80 (Footprint 4.8/FPMCP)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
New York Times blows Russian container-hidden missile threat out of proportion
Published: 27 April, 2010, 18:26
Edited: 09 May, 2010, 08:15
An article in the New York Times has stirred up a scare reminiscent of “Reds under the bed” with a story on Club-K missile systems, which can be hidden inside standard shipping containers.
What can anybody in his right mind expect from the New York Times? Distraction, distortion, misinformation, propaganda, lies, and unceasing Russia-bashing. This garbage spews out of the NYT daily, because the enemies of humanity cannot stand patriotic people like Medvedev and Putin leading their country. They would rather see stooges of US imperialism and so-called Russians of their liking at the helm of the Russian state so they reduce Russia to a vassal state as they are doing with the United States itself.
This is not the only surprise for the U.S.
For this to be operational on a vessel you would have to have 1) No other container on top of it. 2) No other container on the end it will open on as a 40ft container is 2.5m high and it has to swing to fire. 3) A ships planner to coordinate all this. It is just scare mongering.
I agree that this threat is nothing new. The media has just discovered it. But, hijack a satelllite? What does the author mean? Am I hijacking a satellite when I use the GPS in my cellular telephone too? The author should elaborate more on what he means when he says one would need to hijack a satellite in order to have this missile hit its target. I can only assume that he means that the GPS guidance would be off if the GPS satellite signals were scrambled, but those signals are not scrambled right now, nor are they likely to be scrambled ten minutes from now. They weren't scrambled after the Pentagon was attacked on 11 September 2001. So, please elaborate dear author.
Unless the satellite requirements are special enough such that use would be very restricted, the system looks dangerous. Who will buy it has yet to be seen, but this sort of a missile system might be as dangerous in the hands of some proxy as US AA weapons were in the hands of the Mujahideen in Afghanistan during the 80s. Technology is often destabilizing, and this new weapon system may be yet another example of that. The US military is large and well funded, but it is also complacent and obsessed with defeating primitive foes.
The terrorists don't need to hijack a satellite - Iran has satellites and supports terrorists directly. Russia has already supplied Iran with arms and technology to develop nuclear weapons so I wouldn't be surprised if this falls into terrorist hands.