NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,469828,00.html
Europe Divided Over US Missile Defense Plan
By SPIEGEL Staff

Washington's plans to build a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic have cast a shadow over US relations with Europe. Will German Chancellor Angela Merkel feel compelled to distance herself from US President George Bush?

What do you reckon about this whole thing? Isn't Russia overreacting just a bit, knowing fully well that the interceptors won't be able to stop a real Russian attack, but might just help lessen the threat from places like Iran?

Are you in favour of the sites being placed in Europe? And where would you like to see them?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,469828,00.html
What do you reckon about this whole thing? Isn't Russia overreacting just a bit, knowing fully well that the interceptors won't be able to stop a real Russian attack, but might just help lessen the threat from places like Iran?

Russia would be idiots to trust the USA. Anyone would be. Russia's response so far has been more than reasoned; in fact, I would have expected much more opposition from them, and I must say I am disappointed that it has not yet materialised. One can just hope Russia starts getting tough, soon.

Are you in favour of the sites being placed in Europe?

Nope.

And where would you like to see them?

Nowhere.

Russia would be idiots to trust the USA. Anyone would be. Russia's response so far has been more than reasoned; in fact, I would have expected much more opposition from them, and I must say I am disappointed that it has not yet materialised. One can just hope Russia starts getting tough, soon.


Partly because they are also part of the project. This is just noisemaking for political cover.

Guess who is collaborating on the technology to build these things?

Partly because they are also part of the project. This is just noisemaking for political cover.

Putin's speech from a month ago was pointed enough to instil hope that the Russian bear may finally be awakening. For everyone's sake, I sure do hope it is.

Putin's speech from a month ago was pointed enough to instil hope that the Russian bear may finally be awakening. For everyone's sake, I sure do hope it is.

Dear God, you sound like one of those people who's played Red Alert and gone "lol the rushans are cool long live mother russia". How would the 'Russian bear' awakening be good for anyone? Was the Cold War fun?

Not in favour because America has no right to do so.

Putin's speech from a month ago was pointed enough to instil hope that the Russian bear may finally be awakening. For everyone's sake, I sure do hope it is.

Yes its seams the Russian bear is back to its old tricks all right. Re-aligning it self as a world power. Strengthening its relations with China. Things look bleak for the world as we grow closer to war.

Not in favour because America has no right to do so.

Has no right to safeguard against a nuclear holocaust?

Meh, Russia should just shoot down an old weather satelite like China. This 'sons of star wars' couldn't do shit without its satelites used to detect the ICBM launches. If the Russians waited for Candian geese to migrate to the US for the winter and then shoot down the Star wars satelites it's doubtful that the silly little system would even be able to take out a single warhead.

'Oh noes, we can't tell if it's flock of warheads or tactical dispersion of birds!'

I believe the US should back off, unless its intended aim is to start an arms race with another country.

The US would be much more threatened if Iran persuaded OPEC to raise oil prices than if it were to fire a missile. For one it doesn't have any nuclear warheads yet, and secondly the furthest it can currently reach is Israel.

Dear God, you sound like one of those people who's played Red Alert and gone "lol the rushans are cool long live mother russia". How would the 'Russian bear' awakening be good for anyone? Was the Cold War fun?

The Cold War wasn't fun in any sense of the word, so why is the USA seeking to rekindle it? It is sheer lunacy, and while the situation arising is not Russia's doing, it will hopefully be undone by her.

Has no right to safeguard against a nuclear holocaust?

On the contrary, a nuclear holocaust is exactly what US actions in this matter have been bringing ever closer.

The Cold War wasn't fun in any sense of the word, so why is the USA seeking to rekindle it? It is sheer lunacy, and while the situation arising is not Russia's doing, it will hopefully be undone by her.

Because they don't want to get nuked by Iran. They're qualm isn't with Russia, it's with Iran.

I also think its a bad idea. It will only heighten all ready rising tensions. We need to put water on this preverbal fire not gasoline.

It isn't a security move as much as it is to secure American support even deeper into Eastern Europe. The Baltic States are pretty much switching allegience, we're pushing it futher.

As for the states like N. Korea and Iran that want nukes, they couldn't possibly do much harm to the US mainland, but they could do serious damage to our allies in their respective regions, which wouldn't play out so well for American power.

All of this is a show of strength, nothing else.

I'm fine with missile defense sites in Europe so long as they are favored by the countries they're being put in, and without coercion. I do, however, have a problem with any attempt to pester Russia right now. Our alliance is an uneasy one that only 20 years before earlier have been considered impossible.

Because they don't want to get nuked by Iran. They're qualm isn't with Russia, it's with Iran.

Nonsense. This programme was started long before this trumped up Iranian "threat", which is just serving as a feeble excuse that no one is buying. This is a clear and present threat to Russia, and Russia isn't so stupid as not to see it or be persuaded by US lie... I mean, "information".

If we were giving them missiles or nukes then mabye I could see the anger. But defensive weapons? Are you saying that Poland an the Cezchs have no right to defend themselves? Are you saying that we are infringing on the Russians rights to invade Poland or the Cezch Republic? B/C if we were arguing about iraq right now i'm pretty sure that you would be saying that it was unjust and that it was a sovereign country. So i guess my question is why it is any different if it isn't the U.S.?


Edit: I could be missing something critical b/c i haven't really been able to see any news lately but from what i can gather i don't see any support for Fass's POV.

If we were giving them missiles

You would be giving them missiles.

But defensive weapons?

This is not a defensive weapon, as its aim is to prevent Russia, or any other nation for that matter not part of this and thus not in the US pocket, from being able to defend itself against nuclear aggression. You see, a shield in the hand of someone who also has a sword aimed at you is as much a threat as the sword itself to those who lack a reciprocal shield.

Or, what? You'd expect the US to sit idly by if this were Russia or China building a shield in an attempt to render impotent any US nuclear retribution? The US isn't even standing idly by when Iran is scrounging to get the only thing that can protect it from US aggression, and Iran wouldn't even be affecting the US's retributive ability...

Russia would be idiots to trust the USA. Anyone would be. Russia's response so far has been more than reasoned; in fact, I would have expected much more opposition from them, and I must say I am disappointed that it has not yet materialised. One can just hope Russia starts getting tough, soon.



Nope.



Nowhere.

May as well just quote you. I agree fully. The US needs to stop policing the world. There is no reason bases are needed in Poland and Czech Republic. There is no threat to them. Furthermore, the only missile threat is to Israel, and possibly Iraq later.

You would be giving them missiles.

Alright, then if if they're not the interceptor missiles then I agree with you.

This is not a defensive weapon, as its aim is to prevent Russia, or any other nation for that matter not part of this and thus not in the US pocket, from being able to defend itself against nuclear aggression. You see, a shield in the hand of someone who also has a sword aimed at you is as much a threat as the sword itself to those who lack a reciprocal shield.

I can see where you're coming from a little bit but am still not convinced. I understand that it gets in the way of MAD at first but if everyone has a defense system then nuclear weapons are negated all together.

Or, what? You'd expect the US to sit idly by if this were Russia or China building a shield in an attempt to render impotent any US nuclear retribution? The US isn't even standing idly by when Iran is scrounging to get the only thing that can protect it from US aggression, and Iran wouldn't even be affecting the US's retributive ability...

Yes i would expect them to. W/ our current intellegence ideology countries like Iran are looked at with a different eye. W/ Russia or China we can see what they are doing and predict other things about them. W/ countries like Iran we are much more paranoid and expect the worst. Russia's intel ideology is based around everyone is out to get them which explains their reaction.

If we were giving them missiles or nukes then mabye I could see the anger. But defensive weapons? Are you saying that Poland an the Cezchs have no right to defend themselves? Are you saying that we are infringing on the Russians rights to invade Poland or the Cezch Republic? B/C if we were arguing about iraq right now i'm pretty sure that you would be saying that it was unjust and that it was a sovereign country. So i guess my question is why it is any different if it isn't the U.S.?


Edit: I could be missing something critical b/c i haven't really been able to see any news lately but from what i can gather i don't see any support for Fass's POV.I support Fass' point of view.

You would be giving them missiles.



This is not a defensive weapon, as its aim is to prevent Russia, or any other nation for that matter not part of this and thus not in the US pocket, from being able to defend itself against nuclear aggression. You see, a shield in the hand of someone who also has a sword aimed at you is as much a threat as the sword itself to those who lack a reciprocal shield.

Or, what? You'd expect the US to sit idly by if this were Russia or China building a shield in an attempt to render impotent any US nuclear retribution? The US isn't even standing idly by when Iran is scrounging to get the only thing that can protect it from US aggression, and Iran wouldn't even be affecting the US's retributive ability...

So that means the U.S. doesn't have a right to set up such a defense, especially if Russia and China both would do so if they had the opportunity?

You know what? I'm starting to think the Cold War never ended...it just got a sixteen year reprieve.

So that means the U.S. doesn't have a right to set up such a defense, especially if Russia and China both would do so if they had the opportunity?

"Right" has no bearing upon the matter. Russia and China have every "right" to then rearm and devise weapons that will penetrate this shield, which they will do, read the article where they say their first order of business will be to target these installations - they'd be fools not to after the US having been foolish themselves to push them towards it - and then those under this pointless shield will have to revise it, and then the other side revise again... and where will the world be then?

You know what? I'm starting to think the Cold War never ended...it just got a sixteen year reprieve.

Ah, you see where it will be.

Alright, then if if they're not the interceptor missiles then I agree with you.
They're just interceptors. They don't even have warheads, as the things are just meant to collide with ICBMs travelling through space and the pieces burn up in the atmosphere.

As I understand it, these things aren't actually primarily there to protect Europe. To do that there are Patriot missiles and so on, which can hopefully intercept the odd Iranian Shahab.

The system is there to protect the US from intercontinental missiles. In order to increase the chances for a successful intercept you need to have the right location for the interceptors, which apparently is somewhere in Europe. And since the UK has put its hand up to take them, it doesn't have to be Eastern Europe.

Now, of course this won't hurt Russia's ability to pulverise in the least. There'd be a few dozen interceptors, requiring massive radars tracking a small number of targets. If Russia decides to blow someone up, they'll send hundreds of ICBMs, and the interceptors will be worthless.

They only make sense against things like an Iranian or North Korean ICBM. And incidentally, the same system is going to be introduced in the Pacific region as well, I believe.

Something from The Economist: http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8740189

I can see where you're coming from a little bit but am still not convinced. I understand that it gets in the way of MAD at first but if everyone has a defense system then nuclear weapons are negated all together.

Everyone won't have a "defence system", seeing as this is not a defence system at all. It would be a defence system if the US didn't have any nukes - all it is with them, is a nuclear enabler.

Yes i would expect them to.

That would be foolish.

W/ our current intellegence ideology countries like Iran are looked at with a different eye. W/ Russia or China we can see what they are doing and predict other things about them. W/ countries like Iran we are much more paranoid and expect the worst. Russia's intel ideology is based around everyone is out to get them which explains their reaction.

So is the US's. It would react in the same manner and would be very eager not to let its weapons become obsolete.

"Right" has no bearing upon the matter. Russia and China have every "right" to then rearm and devise weapons that will penetrate this shield, which they will do, read the article where they say their first order of business will be to target these installations - they'd be fools not to after the US having been foolish themselves to push them towards it - and then those under this pointless shield will have to revise it, and then the other side revise again... and where will the world be then?



Ah, you see where it will be.
My point, Fass, is that governments will do what governments will do. This is hardly the first antagonistic act on either side over the past few years. Russia has been developing new types of nuclear weaponry, as has the U.S. I believe. Putin is moving Russia back towards authoritarianism. Basically, yes, as I see it, it looks like the Cold War is starting back up again.

Then again, maybe we'll be lucky and economic interdependence will settle things down like it has been doing.

Everyone won't have a "defence system", seeing as this is not a defence system at all. It would be a defence system if the US didn't have any nukes - all it is with them, is a nuclear enabler.

No, i'm pretty sure that something that can't cause harm to someone else is a defensive weapon.






So is the US's. It would react in the same manner and would be very eager not to let its weapons become obsolete.

Mabye you don't understand our current anti-ICBM tech but it's not advanced at all. It hardly makes it obsolete. If they needed to retaliate they have more nukes then we have have anti-nuke missiles. All it would do is dissuade them from starting a war b/c we would already have a slight advantage. I also don't think that you quite understand the U.S. intellegence community all that well either. Powerful western countries are seen to think like us. This means that we don't see an ulterior motive. However we do see ulterior motives when dealing with countries like Iraq (pre-war), NK or Iran.