NationStates Jolt Archive

Unless Russia plans to use its missiles on US allies, I don't see how this could be construed as a military threat.

If we really want to threaten Russia, we should work with our European allies to eliminate their need as well as our need for Russian oil. Since they have already shown their willingness to use energy as a weapon even at the risk of public safety, we should take the initiative to curb their resource imperialism as much as possible.

Source: BBC Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6286289.stm)

Missile shield 'threatens Russia'

US plans to expand its embryonic missile defence shield to the Czech Republic and Poland are an "an obvious threat", Russia military officials say.

Poland has confirmed the US wants to negotiate the use of its territory to build part of its missile defence base.

On Sunday, the US asked permission from the Czech Republic and received the backing of Czech PM Mirek Topolanek.

Washington says it needs interceptor missiles in Europe to stop attacks by states like Iran or North Korea.

It hopes to build a radar station in the Czech Republic and to site interceptors in Poland.

Poland's Deputy Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski confirmed that Washington has approached Warsaw over the project and said: "We are now waiting for firm proposals."

It is very doubtful that elements of the national US missile defence system in eastern Europe were aimed at Iranian missiles

Lt Gen Vladimir Popovkin,
Russian space forces

But Moscow insists that the installation of US missiles in countries close to its western border would change the strategic balance in Europe.

Lt Gen Vladimir Popovkin, commander of Russia's space forces, said Moscow would interpret the move as a military threat.

"Our analysis shows that the deployment of a radar station in the Czech Republic and a counter-missile position in Poland are an obvious threat to us.

"It is very doubtful that elements of the national US missile defence system in eastern Europe were aimed at Iranian missiles, as has been stated," he said.

Moscow has warned of "negative consequences" if Prague agrees to host the missile system.

Political issues

Mr Topolanek, the Czech prime minister, has welcomed the US request.

"We are convinced that a possible deployment of the radar station on our territory is in our interest," he said at the weekend.

"It will increase security of the Czech Republic and Europe."

However, Mr Topolanek could face a struggle having the plans approved by both houses of the country's parliament.

His three-party, centre-right governing coalition recently won a vote of confidence, but controls just 100 of 200 seats in the lower house.

There is domestic opposition to the scheme in the Czech Republic, with reports that 200 protesters rallied against the missile defence plans in Prague on Monday.

The US has already built missile interceptor sites in Alaska and in California, but says it needs to expand into Europe to counter growing threats from further afield.

--------

I for one would be ok to see such defensive sites. If there are two nations in Europe I don't trust it are Belarus and above all Russia. Belarus being the last dictatorship in europe and Russia being the piece of crap it has always been.

The Russians make a sport of it to cut off energy supplies to Europe every 6 months. Either Europe invests in more sustainable energy or goes nuclear. Or we will be dependent on a bunch of drunkards and ex-Communists.

Maybe, maybe the US should shoot a missile on Russiá's tundra, kill a penguin or two and see what the Russians do. Either they just give us the gas or they come around pillaging and raping like Huns as they have done on several occasions.
I know penguins do not live on the North Pole

Russia itself is a threat to European security. With its state terror it uses to occupy Georgia (not you RE) and has been occupying parts of Finland for six decades.

Maybe, maybe the US should shoot a missile on Russiá's tundra, kill a penguin or two and see what the Russians do. Either they just give us the gas or they come around pillaging and raping like Huns as they have done on several occasions.


Russia itself is a threat to European security. With its state terror it uses to occupy Georgia (not you RE) and has been occupying parts of Finland for six decades.

You are such a sane and rational person that I bow to your intellect and forward thinkingness.

Your goal IS to start world war three, right? Because if so you're on a damned good track

I don't like Putin and the Russian policy either - but thats no reason to become a racist.

How many times they plunderd and raped Europe in the last 100 years? And does this mean, that they are all bad people?

I think, we should try to get rid of Putin who is installing a dictatorship, but not to provoke whole Russia.

Nothing but meaningless rhetoric and babble from the Russkies, that missile shield is no threat to the oodles and oodles of offensive missiles they have.

We couldn't stop a Russian nuclear attack if we knew it was coming a week in advance.

How many times they plunderd and raped Europe in the last 100 years?

1945-1991. Continuously.

Fortunately NATO held them at the BRD border.

Unless Russia plans to use its missiles on US allies, I don't see how this could be construed as a military threat.

If we really want to threaten Russia, we should work with our European allies to eliminate their need as well as our need for Russian oil. Since they have already shown their willingness to use energy as a weapon even at the risk of public safety, we should take the initiative to curb their resource imperialism as much as possible.

Well, it is a possible thread: If you can stop their nukes from detonating in your country, you have no risk if you send nukes to them.

That's the reason that the Nato and the Soviet Union have to decided not to develop or install missile shields in the cold war. But Bush has broken this treaty with this new program.

Well, it is a possible thread: If you can stop their nukes from detonating in your country, you have no risk if you send nukes to them.

That's the reason that the Nato and the Soviet Union have to decided not to develop or install missile shields in the cold war. But Bush has broken this treaty with this new program.

Actually, Bush withdrew from the treaty, no violation has occured.

Russia ought to feel free to develop it's own missile shield.

1945-1991. Continuously.

Fortunately NATO held them at the BRD border.

Plunderd and raped?! Well, they had their satellite states, but they didn't plunder them, and they didn't rape the women there.

They brutally stopped some rebellions in Eastern Germany, Hungary and in Checheslowakia, that's true. But sometimes, even the USA have removed democraticly voted presidents, like in Chile. You are not innoncent in this case...

The Sovjetunion was a dictatorship - but that does not mean, that all Russians are evil.

You should know - Russians love their children, too!

Maybe, maybe the US should shoot a missile on Russiá's tundra, kill a penguin or two and see what the Russians do.Penguins live in the southern hemisphere.

Actually, Bush withdrew from the treaty, no violation has occured.

Russia ought to feel free to develop it's own missile shield.

So, you have a new arms race - who has the best missile shield. And if some crazy presidents belive, that their shield is good enough to stop every foreign attack, he could think of a nuclear first strike. And if I look a the current presidents in the USA and Russia, I don't like this idea.

Without a missile shield, every nuclear attack will end in a disaster for both parties. This was one of the reasons that there was no third World War.

Plunderd and raped?! Well, they had their satellite states, but they didn't plunder them, and they didn't rape the women there.

They brutally stopped some rebellions in Eastern Germany, Hungary and in Checheslowakia, that's true. But sometimes, even the USA have removed democraticly voted presidents, like in Chile. You are not innoncent in this case...

The Sovjetunion was a dictatorship - but that does not mean, that all Russians are evil.

You should know - Russians love their children, too!

Throughout the entirety of the Cold War, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics managed to forcibly acquire goods from it's satellite states in the region, German heavy industrial equipment and precision goods, Romanian natural resources, Polish agricultural products, random crap from Czechoslovakia. It was pillage in the utmost.

Furthermore... Crazy fucking rapefest (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1939174.stm).

Furthermore, I'm not saying that Russian's are intrinsically bad people, they're decent people, it's just that their government and their army committed some of the most brutal atrocities in this most brutal of centuries.

So, you have a new arms race - who has the best missile shield.

Russia would simply collapse again(this time in shorter time). They have no economical power for arms race. So its empty threats.

So, you have a new arms race - who has the best missile shield. And if some crazy presidents belive, that their shield is good enough to stop every foreign attack, he could think of a nuclear first strike. And if I look a the current presidents in the USA and Russia, I don't like this idea.

Without a missile shield, every nuclear attack will end in a disaster for both parties. This was one of the reasons that there was no third World War.
Have you ever heard of the concept of making nuclear weapons obsolete?

That's the ultimate goal of an anti-missile shield, to eliminate the usefulness of offensive nuclear weapons.

So, you have a new arms race - who has the best missile shield. And if some crazy presidents belive, that their shield is good enough to stop every foreign attack, he could think of a nuclear first strike. And if I look a the current presidents in the USA and Russia, I don't like this idea.

Without a missile shield, every nuclear attack will end in a disaster for both parties. This was one of the reasons that there was no third World War.


This Missile Shield is no golden ticket. It's not like a huge shield deployed, making the US completely invulnerable. The missile defense system might get a kill for every 4 interceptors it fires. If the Russians really got insane and launched an all out attack, there is nothing we could do about it.

This present incarnation is designed to stop a small attack. Probably no more than a dozen missiles. It's not supposed to defend against a huge attack. This system was designed for the North Koreas of the world. The nations with insane leaders, or when one of the -stans gets a hold of ex-Russian missiles and had a nervous breakdown.

Also, this system could actually increase the Nuclear Peace, IMHO. Remember that Norwegian rocket launch that the Russians initially confused with a Nuclear Missile. The only reason we're still around is because one ballsy officer didn't launch a full scale nuclear attack. Imagine if we could stop a 1 or 2 missile accidental launch like that?

You should know - Russians love their children, too!

Except if those children happen to live in Chechnya.

Have you ever heard of the concept of making nuclear weapons obsolete?

That's the ultimate goal of an anti-missile shield, to eliminate the usefulness of offensive nuclear weapons.

Or... to eliminate Mutally Assured Destruction by rendering your foes' nuclear arsenal obsolete, thus freeing your own for ramification-free use.

Which is what the russians fear.

I did not mean to be racist. But the Russians did kill many Polish people as well as Ukrainian freedom fighters and raped many German women.

The proud Hungarians were betrayed by Europe when they tried to get themselves rid of Moscow's rule.

They emptied many places of Eastern Europe, without any legality.

They still occupy about 10% of Finland, after a war they fought against the free Finnish people.

They still occupy parts of Georgia, and refuse to leave that ground. Even though the international community considers it part of Georgia.

The proud Hungarians were betrayed by Europe when they tried to get themselves rid of Moscow's rule.


My Grandmother still uberpissed about that. She's a Hungarian expat. Truely, one of the West's worst moments in the Cold War.

Have you ever heard of the concept of making nuclear weapons obsolete?

That's the ultimate goal of an anti-missile shield, to eliminate the usefulness of offensive nuclear weapons.

Then it has to be done evenly by all sides otherwise there is a power imbalance again and you end up doing exactly what Russia is claiming we are doing ...threatening them

Then they can feel free to develop their own defense system.

I'd much rather a defensive arms race, rather than an offensive one.

Yes, because if there's one thing that history has shown is that when defenses are developed for deadly weapons, nobody tries to develop deadlier weapons that no defense exists for yet.

...wait.... shit! :(

Or... to eliminate Mutally Assured Destruction by rendering your foes' nuclear arsenal obsolete, thus freeing your own for ramification-free use.

Which is what the russians fear.

Then they can feel free to develop their own defense system.

I'd much rather a defensive arms race, rather than an offensive one.

Penguins live in the southern hemisphere.This is just propaganda from the penguin puppet state of Canada. Penguins and polar bears are locked in an eternal struggle for control over Greenland. Every educated person knows that.

OK, here's something I don't quite get: let's say we build a missle shield -- one that actually works, and shoots down any missle the Russians, the Chinese, or whoever throws at us. Then we can launch a retaliatory strike with impunity, right? Well, does the missle shield also erect some kind of force field around the nation's perimeter to keep out the radiation from our own weapons, which would circulate globally via the jet stream?

Penguins live in the southern hemisphere.

You may want to select my entire post at the beginning of this thread. I was just wondering how fast one would make this all knowing remark.

Actually, Bush withdrew from the treaty, no violation has occured.

Russia ought to feel free to develop it's own missile shield.

And don't forget that that treaty was with the Soviet Union... a nation that no longer even exists.

Have you ever heard of the concept of making nuclear weapons obsolete?

That's the ultimate goal of an anti-missile shield, to eliminate the usefulness of offensive nuclear weapons.

Yes, this would be great, if it would work. The problem would be, that not only the missile shields would be improved, but also the missiles itself, so that they would be harder to detect and to shoot down.

But such a project should be done internationally, not by only one nation. Combinied with bans of developping stealthy missiles. When it would be a good idea, though.

And don't forget that that treaty was with the Soviet Union... a nation that no longer even exists.

Ahm, Russia is officially the successor of the Soviet Union - so all treaties with the SU are still legal. You can't cancel all treaties by changing your nations name and constitution. ;)

You should know - Russians love their children, too!

In Europe and America, there's a growing feeling of hysteria, conditioned to respond to all the threats in the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets...

Except if those children happen to live in Chechnya.

Well, my point was, that bad politics doesn't mean, that all the people are bad.

Well Putin could have ended this war long ago, but for him some "terrorists" are a good excuse for cutting civil rights... :headbang:

Unless Russia plans to use its missiles on US allies, I don't see how this could be construed as a military threat.

If we really want to threaten Russia, we should work with our European allies to eliminate their need as well as our need for Russian oil. Since they have already shown their willingness to use energy as a weapon even at the risk of public safety, we should take the initiative to curb their resource imperialism as much as possible.

I don't know what planet you're from, but to me, introducing a missile shield into a policy based on Mutually Assured Destruction seems to upset the fragile balance.

If the US has a system to protect itself from Russian or other nuclear attacks/counterattacks, that's not much incentive to keep playing nice. MAD only works if both will be annihilated in any nuclear exchange. Missile shields give one party a distinct advantage, and thus the ability to use nuclear weapons carte blanche on anyone that it might please the US foreign policy elites to do so.

I don't know what planet you're from, but to me, introducing a missile shield into a policy based on Mutually Assured Destruction seems to upset the fragile balance.

Technically, MAD between the US and USSR is not supposed to exist anymore. The Russians were no longer supposed to have missiles targeted on US cities anymore and we weren't supposed to have them targeting their cities. If anything, the US and Russia are supposed to cooperate to ensure that their nuclear arsenals be managed and dismantled securely.

If the US has a system to protect itself from Russian or other nuclear attacks/counterattacks, that's not much incentive to keep playing nice. MAD only works if both will be annihilated in any nuclear exchange. Missile shields give one party a distinct advantage, and thus the ability to use nuclear weapons carte blanche on anyone that it might please the US foreign policy elites to do so.

Problem is, nobody with nukes is going to use them. Missile shield or not, the damage that these weapons could cause is going to deter anyone but the most extreme nations from using them; if we have a missile shield, we can reduce the risk that those extreme nations might decide to us them on us or our allies.

Russia should not see this as a threat unless they're planning something themselves. The US isn't going to use them, since there's no way in hell anyone is going to authorize their use. I mean, France and the UK have nuclear weapons but they're not going to be threatened by a missile shield. Even China's not going to care.

Technically, MAD between the US and USSR is not supposed to exist anymore. The Russians were no longer supposed to have missiles targeted on US cities anymore and we weren't supposed to have them targeting their cities. If anything, the US and Russia are supposed to cooperate to ensure that their nuclear arsenals be managed and dismantled securely.

Technically, speaking, it shouldn't, but it does still exist. The cornerstone of US defense and global hegemony is and probably always will be its massive arsenal of ICBMs and SLBMs. The tension still exists, and the threat of someone deciding to use them still exists.

Problem is, nobody with nukes is going to use them. Missile shield or not, the damage that these weapons could cause is going to deter anyone but the most extreme nations from using them; if we have a missile shield, we can reduce the risk that those extreme nations might decide to us them on us or our allies.

Russia should not see this as a threat unless they're planning something themselves. The US isn't going to use them, since there's no way in hell anyone is going to authorize their use. I mean, France and the UK have nuclear weapons but they're not going to be threatened by a missile shield. Even China's not going to care.

Let's put this in perspective. Many times, the US presidents were urged by their advisors to launch a first strike on the USSR, even though their land forces and embryonic nuclear programs didn't pose any credible threat to the US at the time. The most clear cut case was during Eisenhower's presidency, and again during Kennedy's presidency.

Both times, the a US first strike could have obliterated the USSR, and there would be no one powerful enough to challenge such an action. Now, the US is even more powerful relatively to other world powers. Such a missile shield would give the US the ability to use nuclear weapons indiscriminately against any target. Now, do you really trust anyone with this kind of power? I certainly don't.