NationStates Jolt Archive

Last week on the italian news channel RAINews24 there was an interesting glance at the US ABM program.

Two russian generals -now working as military analysts and teachers in military schools- were interviewed. They both claimed that the placing of US ABM systems in Poland (missiles) and Czech Republic (radars) isn't aimed at stopping a volley of ballistic missiles launched from Iran or some other ME country at the USA - missiles would have been better placed in Caucasus (Georgia is an ally of the US) if that was their purpose. Also, the small number of interceptor missiles (just 10) makes it unlikely that they're aimed at intercepting any kind of ICBM, not just the russian ones, because of the low kill/missile ratio.
Instead, they claimed, the most likely purpose of the US missiles placed in Poland is to intercept and destroy LEO targets and space vectors launched from the european part of Russia. This would be consistent with the speeches given by Pres.Bush about the US having right to unlimited space access and to preventing other countries from gaining space superiority.

What do you think? I don't know if it's true (well, Bush is known to throw money out of the window just to fuel the contractors of the Pentagon, no matter how useless the program, isn't he? And the russians are usually a bit paranoid, also....), but it sounds very interesting and insightful.

no its silly Poland and Czechoslovakia are in terrible positions to shoot down anything coming from (or even in) Russia thats the flaw in the Russian argument and the reason why nobody is really listening

course the real reason is Russia typically sees especially Poland as under its sphere of influence as such it sees American deals with former Warsaw states as trespassing on there home turf (imagine the reaction if Russia placed a missile system in Ireland)

That's actually a really good idea...if the US could maintain control over who gets in to space, we'd be set for having first access to the moon and places beyond. Not to mention it would in fact protect against Iran as well, so we get to kill two birds with one stone.

Russia's only bitching because they lack the ability to deploy ABMs like we do. I say screw them and do what we think is a good idea for our strategic priorities, not what Russia thinks is a good idea. They're only interested in what's good for them, and we should only be interested in what's good for us...I damn well know they'd never extend the same courtesy to us if our positions were swapped. They're not our allies, and they're our main competitor in space, so why not do what we can to put pressure on the competition? There's no prize for being a team player.

Besides, I'm sure Eastern Europe would love to thumb their noses at their oppressive Cold War overlord, even if it means siding with the US.

Russia's only bitching because they lack the ability to deploy ABMs


Look on wiki for the S-400 missile, it has ABM capability. Also, under the old ABM treaty, CCCP was allowed to place ABMs around Moscow and Leningrad, so I'd guess Russia has ABMs.

Anyway, the purpose of an ABM system is to grant the safety of ICBM sites to launch a retribution strike. Destroying -let's say- 100 ICBM in LEO will result in a huge fallout of radioactive matter from the sky, making Chernobyl look like a piece of cake in comparison.

They're not our allies, and they're our main competitor in space, so why not do what we can to put pressure on the competition? There's no prize for being a team player.

So, watch it, Europe, we're coming for you also, uh? Since the NASA is only the world's third commercial launcher, after ESA and Russia...

Besides, I'm sure Eastern Europe would love to thumb their noses at their oppressive Cold War overlord, even if it means siding with the US.

You can be just as sure that many Canadians'd love to thumb their nose at their own oppressive Cold War overlord, too - even if it meant siding with Vladimir Putin

no its silly Poland and Czechoslovakia are in terrible positions to shoot down anything coming from (or even in) Russia

Really? Remember, Russia doesn't launch just from Bajkonur (Kazakhstan).

course the real reason is Russia typically sees especially Poland as under its sphere of influence as such it sees American deals with former Warsaw states as trespassing on there home turf (imagine the reaction if Russia placed a missile system in Ireland)
Or nuclear missiles in Cuba... yes, this could be.

You can be just as sure that many Canadians'd love to thumb their nose at their own oppressive Cold War overlord, too - even if it meant siding with Vladimir Putin

Go ahead. You guys can do what you want...you are a sovereign nation after all. But then again, the US was a lot better to Canada and its other allies than the Soviets were to Poland or Czechoslovakia. We never sent in tanks to crush your peaceful demonstrations and overthrow popularly elected leaders.

We were smart enough to confine our hypocrisy to the Third World, thank you very much.

You can be just as sure that many Canadians'd love to thumb their nose at their own oppressive Cold War overlord, too - even if it meant siding with Vladimir Putin
We're on Russia's side now? Sweet! Time to become Neo-Nazis! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDHvnNkk7m0)

Really? Remember, Russia doesn't launch just from Bajkonur (Kazakhstan).

fortunately Russia has its launch sites to the North East in Europe which would rather than call for a ballistic missile shield to be deployed in Czech or Polish territory be in Finland etc

though by all means not even during the cold wars height did the US try to shoot down Russian spy satellites, I for one don't think even Bush could be that stupid

Or nuclear missiles in Cuba... yes, this could be.

course what happened then was the US pulled missiles out of Turkey, perhaps Russia has something of bother...

why not do what we can to put pressure on the competition?

Because of this.

(excerpt from wikipedia)
Outer Space Treaty
Main article: Outer Space Treaty
The Outer Space Treaty, considered by the Legal Subcommittee in 1966. Later that year, agreement was reached in the General Assembly. The treaty included the following principles:

the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities;
States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.
In summary, the treaty initiated the banning of signatories' placing of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. The United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union signed the treaty and it entered into effect on 10 October 1967. As of January 1, 2005, 98 States have ratified, and an additional 27 have signed the Outer Space Treaty.
(bold mine)

fortunately Russia has its launch sites to the North East in Europe which would rather than call for a ballistic missile shield to be deployed in Czech or Polish territory be in Finland etc

though by all means not even during the cold wars height did the US try to shoot down Russian spy satellites, I for one don't think even Bush could be that stupid



course what happened then was the US pulled missiles out of Turkey, perhaps Russia has something of bother...

On the contrary. Both the US and Russia blinded each other's spy sats with high-powered lasers during the 1980's. The US did it before and during the Granada incident, while the Russians used their capacity irregularly. Neither side instituted it as policy because of the potentially destabilizing effects it could have on the Tri-Polar Balance of Power.

We're on Russia's side now? Sweet! Time to become Neo-Nazis! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDHvnNkk7m0)

You need to be like the seedier elements of Austria to side with Russia?

That's actually a really good idea...if the US could maintain control over who gets in to space, we'd be set for having first access to the moon and places beyond. Not to mention it would in fact protect against Iran as well, so we get to kill two birds with one stone.

Russia's only bitching because they lack the ability to deploy ABMs like we do. I say screw them and do what we think is a good idea for our strategic priorities, not what Russia thinks is a good idea. They're only interested in what's good for them, and we should only be interested in what's good for us...I damn well know they'd never extend the same courtesy to us if our positions were swapped. They're not our allies, and they're our main competitor in space, so why not do what we can to put pressure on the competition? There's no prize for being a team player.

Besides, I'm sure Eastern Europe would love to thumb their noses at their oppressive Cold War overlord, even if it means siding with the US.The reason why the US might wish to respect Russia's interests to a certain extent is a little something called the balance of power.

Denying Russia access to space would be an extraordinary military threat. So all you would need is someone who highly values their liberty and believes the US wants to compromise Russia's sovereignty, and you could face a pre-emptive nuclear strike before the US is able to develop any space weapons.

The US needs to play a subtle game if it wants to dominate space. It has to make Russia believe that it is to their advantage that the current system prevail. And denying Russia access to space would probably not convince them of this. So as long as Russia's nuclear arsenal could overwhelm any US ABM system, then US will have to tread relatively lightly.

The reason why the US might wish to respect Russia's interests to a certain extent is a little something called the balance of power.

Yes, but at the same time they also have to respect our own interests. Those defenses do have a legitimate purpose in defending our allies as well as our own bases against any hostile action from Iran, and the nations of Poland and the Czech Republic have the right to deploy them if they feel it is in their own best interests.

Denying Russia access to space would be an extraordinary military threat. So all you would need is someone who highly values their liberty and believes the US wants to compromise Russia's sovereignty, and you could face a pre-emptive nuclear strike before the US is able to develop any space weapons.

But we're not denying them access to space. The only time we'd ever use those against Russia is if they were to do something that threatened us; otherwise, they're not going to be used against them at all. If Russia has no hostile intentions against the US, it should have no problem with us putting ABM facilities in the region, and vice versa if they feel so inclined.

The US needs to play a subtle game if it wants to dominate space. It has to make Russia believe that it is to their advantage that the current system prevail. And denying Russia access to space would probably not convince them of this. So as long as Russia's nuclear arsenal could overwhelm any US ABM system, then US will have to tread relatively lightly.

The current system is a gold mine for Russia because they've effectively got a monopoly on any kind of commercial space travel...including things shipped by the US. We rely on them to supply our astronauts in the ISS and to launch most of our satellites; threatening Russian space launches wouldn't do a damn thing to help us since our own ability to rival their dominance in the industry is virtually nonexistent.

If anything, it seems like Russia's real concern is that they can't rival our deployment of ABMs in the region and want to look tough even if they can't back it by any real action.

Now, maybe if it were 2015 or 2020, things would be a lot different, but right now the US doesn't have the technology or the infrastructure to rival the Russians in space.

Isn't Bush's policy of Space superiority going against the International Space Treaty?

Isn't Bush's policy of Space superiority going against the International Space Treaty?

As if silly little things like laws and treaties mean anything to Bush.

As if silly little things like laws and treaties mean anything to Bush.

I think he would love to ride a rocket to the moon (then again many people would like him riding a rocket into the sun).

As if silly little things like laws and treaties mean anything to Bush.

I hate this prevalent arrogance in American politicians that America should be able to break International laws that "restrict American interests" or the age-old "restriction of sovereignty" tht anti-UN morons spout.

Then these same politicians, when another country violates international law or treaties, spout out about how the UN can't do anything, how it should be doing more to stop them, ie Iran. And when the UN tries to reform or create new agencies or pass resolutions to set these countries right, they get either vetoed or refused funding.

I hate this prevalent arrogance in American politicians that America should be able to break International laws that "restrict American interests" or the age-old "restriction of sovereignty" tht anti-UN morons spout.

Then these same politicians, when another country violates international law or treaties, spout out about how the UN can't do anything, how it should be doing more to stop them, ie Iran. And when the UN tries to reform or create new agencies or pass resolutions to set these countries right, they get either vetoed or refused funding.

To put it simply, America wants its bread buttered on both sides.

To put it simply, America wants its bread buttered on both sides.

Exactly. And the American government has to learn that it can't do that. The USA can't keep hindering the UN the way it does. If America threw it's weight behind the UN, instead of acting against it, so much more could be accomplished.

I hate this prevalent arrogance in American politicians that America should be able to break International laws that "restrict American interests" or the age-old "restriction of sovereignty" tht anti-UN morons spout.

Problem is, the US isn't breaking any laws. There is absolutely no proof that those missiles are intended for use on Russian space launches, and given that Russia is currently the only one making such allegations, there's no international consensus that we're doing something wrong.

The Russians don't like us encroaching on what they consider their territory, and they're looking for a reason to try and force us to back down. It has nothing to do with the law, just Russia trying to flex its muscles over their former empire.

Problem is, the US isn't breaking any laws. There is absolutely no proof that those missiles are intended for use on Russian space launches, and given that Russia is currently the only one making such allegations, there's no international consensus that we're doing something wrong.

The Russians don't like us encroaching on what they consider their territory, and they're looking for a reason to try and force us to back down. It has nothing to do with the law, just Russia trying to flex its muscles over their former empire.

I agree with you completely regarding the ABM's. Although it is unusual that they are placed where they are, there is no proof that they would be used to blockade space travel yet. And Russia's behaviour regarding Eastern Europe is atrocious, what with economic blockades, spying and even armed incursions.

I'm more upset by Bush's previous speeches regarding American Space superiority, which would break the International Space Treaty, where no nation can have any territorial claim on space.

I'm more upset by Bush's previous speeches regarding American Space superiority, which would break the International Space Treaty, where no nation can have any territorial claim on space.

Well, yeah, that's idiotic. The only kind of superiority we deserve is our private companies being able to take a dominant position in the market; trying to establish some kind of national strategic dominance in space is utterly illegal and foolish given that the only realistic way that space will be commercialized and settled is through international cooperation.

Yeah I heard something about this on the news, it makes sense though, I mean just geographically speaking, if you look at the land mass and location of Poland and the Czech Republic you'll see their are much better positions if your wanting to intercept missiles from Iran/Syria or the middle east. I mean just look at at the locations, I don't theirs any denying this is aimed at Russia. Mainly imho because Putin has taken a hard line politically against the oligarchs and the rich foreigners, he knows well the damage caused by Yeltsin (more than Hitler) and knows the Russian living standard was higher under the Soviets. The 'Western allies' want to continue their economic gang rape of the former eastern bloc and Putin is taking a hard line in the interests of his people, you can't argue about that.

Also, 'controlling space' is a pretty silly concept, playing captain obvious here but there is alot of space, trying to control great areas of earths high orbit when it's hard for astronomers to see anything in orbit properly is a little silly.

Well, yeah, that's idiotic. The only kind of superiority we deserve is our private companies being able to take a dominant position in the market; trying to establish some kind of national strategic dominance in space is utterly illegal and foolish given that the only realistic way that space will be commercialized and settled is through international cooperation.

1) Why do U.S.A private (or public) companies deserve to have a dominant/monopoly in any market (if you want a market system)?

2) Why would space/other planets being completely commercial outfits be realistic approaches for interplanetary colonisation?

1) Why do U.S.A private (or public) companies deserve to have a dominant/monopoly in any market (if you want a market system)?

Because I live in the US and US companies being on top benefits me the most economically?

2) Why would space/other planets being completely commercial outfits be realistic approaches for interplanetary colonisation?

They shouldn't be completely commercial.

Yeah I heard something about this on the news, it makes sense though, I mean just geographically speaking, if you look at the land mass and location of Poland and the Czech Republic you'll see their are much better positions if your wanting to intercept missiles from Iran/Syria or the middle east. I mean just look at at the locations, I don't theirs any denying this is aimed at Russia. Mainly imho because Putin has taken a hard line politically against the oligarchs and the rich foreigners, he knows well the damage caused by Yeltsin (more than Hitler) and knows the Russian living standard was higher under the Soviets. The 'Western allies' want to continue their economic gang rape of the former eastern bloc and Putin is taking a hard line in the interests of his people, you can't argue about that.

Also, 'controlling space' is a pretty silly concept, playing captain obvious here but there is alot of space, trying to control great areas of earths high orbit when it's hard for astronomers to see anything in orbit properly is a little silly.

I wish there was some other choice for the Eastern Europeans other than the de-regulated corporate business and commerce of the EU, or falling under a Neo-Soviet Eastern Bloc once more.

Well, yeah, that's idiotic. The only kind of superiority we deserve is our private companies being able to take a dominant position in the market; trying to establish some kind of national strategic dominance in space is utterly illegal and foolish given that the only realistic way that space will be commercialized and settled is through international cooperation.

I pretty much agree with you there. There needs to be much more international cooperation as far as Space travel and colonisation goes. The International Space Station is just one shining example of what can be achieved. Imagine an International Moon Base.

Because I live in the US and US companies being on top benefits me the most economically?

Well, I'd prefer some kind of single world state/country that would allow for enlargenment to a multiple-planet state, but thats just me.

They shouldn't be completely commercial.

Oh wait, I realise that you said it will be settled through internation co-operation. Sorry, my bad.

I wish there was some other choice for the Eastern Europeans other than the de-regulated corporate business and commerce of the EU, or falling under a Neo-Soviet Eastern Bloc once more.

Can I be king of Poland?

I think the Russian generals are ignoring an important aspect of the US ground based interceptor system, specifically, where in missile flight it is designed to intercept. The US interceptors are designed to intercept in mid-flight, not early or late flight.

Can I be king of Poland?

Sorry, that's Jesus (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2740597)

Vladimir Putin is my hero.

Sorry, that's Jesus (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2740597)

I am your Messiah! It is kind of odd having my mother as the honourary queen though...

Vladimir Putin is my hero.

Hooray for the next Czar!

Can I be king of Poland?

Sorry, I dibbed it. I really want hussars.

You can be just as sure that many Canadians'd love to thumb their nose at their own oppressive Cold War overlord, too - even if it meant siding with Vladimir Putin

You even try it and our tourists will dump litter all over Toronto until you surrender.

Sorry, I dibbed it. I really want hussars.

:Confused: Are talking about AoE 2? If so I want those sword hurling guys on horses (saracens?).

Well couldn't the Russians just put some of their ABMs near the US for balance - say Cuba, I can't see the US objecting to that...

Well couldn't the Russians just put some of their ABMs near the US for balance - say Cuba, I can't see the US objecting to that...

That would be worth it just for seeing the lulz of Bush's reaction.

Well couldn't the Russians just put some of their ABMs near the US for balance - say Cuba, I can't see the US objecting to that...

They could say that they are trying to protect Canada from a Columbian attack!

Well couldn't the Russians just put some of their ABMs near the US for balance - say Cuba, I can't see the US objecting to that...

Just do it openly and I'm sure the US won't mind so much. Especially if they are installed in a limited quantity like the US interceptors in Poland.

Anyone would be upset because it comes across as being rather... imperial.

Ask any Canadian what they thought of the BMD system that was proposed when Martin was Prime Minister and almost all of us will say that we feel it is a violation of our national sovereignty.

The American government doesn't want anyone to believe that but that's just what it is, a violation of sovereignty because the governing nation has no jurisdiction over the system.

Anyone would be upset because it comes across as being rather... imperial.

Ask any Canadian what they thought of the BMD system that was proposed when Martin was Prime Minister and almost all of us will say that we feel it is a violation of our national sovereignty.

The American government doesn't want anyone to believe that but that's just what it is, a violation of sovereignty because the governing nation has no jurisdiction over the system.

Besides being allowed to permit or deny deployment of the system on their territory...

Besides being allowed to permit or deny deployment of the system on their territory...

Even if the government allowed it, it doesn't mean the people will agree.

That's actually a really good idea...if the US could maintain control over who gets in to space, we'd be set for having first access to the moon and places beyond. Not to mention it would in fact protect against Iran as well, so we get to kill two birds with one stone.


So in order to prevent other nations from getting into space and beyond, the US shoots down a Russian or Chinese rocket carrying cosmonauts. Brilliant idea that. :rolleyes:

Do you want your radioactive hide rare or well done?

So in order to prevent other nations from getting into space and beyond, the US shoots down a Russian or Chinese rocket carrying cosmonauts. Brilliant idea that. :rolleyes:

Do you want your radioactive hide rare or well done?

Well the nuclear strikes would make everything well done...

Even if the government allowed it, it doesn't mean the people will agree.

Do you have any evidence that they object?

Even if the government allowed it, it doesn't mean the people will agree.

A time when a referrendum might be necessary.

Those defenses do have a legitimate purpose in defending our allies as well as our own bases against any hostile action from Iran,

Yep, I can see Iran building a fleet of let's say 10 ICBMs within the next year and launching them at the USA without receiving a retribution strike that turns the whole Iran in the first radioactive glass desert on Earth.
I can see it. It's real, I swear. I also just took a lot of LSD.;)

Anyway, why not placing them in places nearer Iran, like Turkey, Georgia or Pakistan? Expecially Turkey and Georgia would be on the same route, but would strike when the missile is still in the first phase of flight, hence slower.


But we're not denying them access to space.

Your president told different things. Afaik, he's the one who determines your country's foreign policies.


To put it simply, America wants its bread buttered on both sides.
Always has, always will. As most countries, though, with the possible exception of San Marino and other microcountries, who simply cannot even dream of being able to do so.

Problem is, the US isn't breaking any laws. There is absolutely no proof that those missiles are intended for use on Russian space launches, and given that Russia is currently the only one making such allegations, there's no international consensus that we're doing something wrong.
No. Anyway, under the space treatises, they can question the US about that.

I think the Russian generals are ignoring an important aspect of the US ground based interceptor system, specifically, where in missile flight it is designed to intercept. The US interceptors are designed to intercept in mid-flight, not early or late flight.
Really? Could you provide some source? It's interesting. I would have thought that intercepting in mid-flight instead than in early flight is worse. Also because of the ensuing widespread fallout.

Well couldn't the Russians just put some of their ABMs near the US for balance - say Cuba, I can't see the US objecting to that...
LOL.:D

Really? Could you provide some source? It's interesting. I would have thought that intercepting in mid-flight instead than in early flight is worse. Also because of the ensuing widespread fallout.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense

It's even in the name of the program.

The American National Missile Defense Program is a multicomponent program, utilizing several methods of intercept, ranging from AEGIS cruiser launched missiles to kill in the early midcourse, to the GBMD to kill in midcourse. Boeing YAL-1's are currently under consideration for use as a boost-phase kill method.

The reason for using midcourse interceptors is that during the boost phase, the interceptor would be racing to catch up to the upward bound missile, which already has a head start. A boost phase kill is comparatively difficult, and is virtually guaranteed to shower the area beneath the intercept with radioactive bits. A midcourse kill vehicle can meet the target head on, maneuvering to meet it, instead of burning fuel to catch up. Further, midcourse kills are more likely to be in the upper atmosphere or low earth orbit, meaning less likelihood of fallout.

Last week on the italian news channel RAINews24 there was an interesting glance at the US ABM program.

Two russian generals -now working as military analysts and teachers in military schools- were interviewed. They both claimed that the placing of US ABM systems in Poland (missiles) and Czech Republic (radars) isn't aimed at stopping a volley of ballistic missiles launched from Iran or some other ME country at the USA - missiles would have been better placed in Caucasus (Georgia is an ally of the US) if that was their purpose. Also, the small number of interceptor missiles (just 10) makes it unlikely that they're aimed at intercepting any kind of ICBM, not just the russian ones, because of the low kill/missile ratio.
Instead, they claimed, the most likely purpose of the US missiles placed in Poland is to intercept and destroy LEO targets and space vectors launched from the european part of Russia. This would be consistent with the speeches given by Pres.Bush about the US having right to unlimited space access and to preventing other countries from gaining space superiority.

What do you think? I don't know if it's true (well, Bush is known to throw money out of the window just to fuel the contractors of the Pentagon, no matter how useless the program, isn't he? And the russians are usually a bit paranoid, also....), but it sounds very interesting and insightful.

Look, If Russia was launching a nuke, it's not going to take a trans-Europe route. It would go over the Arctic circle. POland and Czechoslovakia are not exactly in ideal positions to intercept Russian nukes aimed at the US.

Last week on the italian news channel RAINews24 there was an interesting glance at the US ABM program.

Two russian generals -now working as military analysts and teachers in military schools- were interviewed. They both claimed that the placing of US ABM systems in Poland (missiles) and Czech Republic (radars) isn't aimed at stopping a volley of ballistic missiles launched from Iran or some other ME country at the USA - missiles would have been better placed in Caucasus (Georgia is an ally of the US) if that was their purpose. Also, the small number of interceptor missiles (just 10) makes it unlikely that they're aimed at intercepting any kind of ICBM, not just the russian ones, because of the low kill/missile ratio.
Instead, they claimed, the most likely purpose of the US missiles placed in Poland is to intercept and destroy LEO targets and space vectors launched from the european part of Russia. This would be consistent with the speeches given by Pres.Bush about the US having right to unlimited space access and to preventing other countries from gaining space superiority.

What do you think? I don't know if it's true (well, Bush is known to throw money out of the window just to fuel the contractors of the Pentagon, no matter how useless the program, isn't he? And the russians are usually a bit paranoid, also....), but it sounds very interesting and insightful.

The missiles in questio (The Ground Based Interceptor) are designed to intercept ICBMs during their mid-course phase.

The interceptor launch sites must be placed at a location in front of the mid-course trajectory of the missile, preferably over 1000km away or more from the launch site.

They are useless for intercepts during boost phase (which is what intercepting launches would be), and they are also useless for terminal phase intercepts (intercepting from short range launches which is what intercepting IRBM or SRBM launches from Russia would be if the target was Europe).

As for ICBMs flying to the US from Russia, the interceptors would also be useless for this, as the ICBMs would be flying away from the interceptor site.

I think what they don't like is the continued presence of US military forces in general in Europe, especially in former Warsaw Pact nations. It means they can't influence them as much, and can't sell them any weapons.

In terms of sheer weapon sales, the Russians make a lot of money selling to anyone they can. They don't have a missile that can match the PAC-3 Patriot, the SM-3 Standard, or the Ground Based Interceptor for intercepting missiles - missiles that they sell to anyone with the cash.

It's bad enough for both France and Russia - their sales of radars, missiles, and other military stuff overseas has been stifled by the worldwide perception that their stuff is essentially useless crap if the US is going to shoot back.

About all they can sell that people expect will work are mines, rifles, and RPGs. Everything else is just an expensive target (or useful only for flyovers at military parades).

Yep, I can see Iran building a fleet of let's say 10 ICBMs within the next year and launching them at the USA without receiving a retribution strike that turns the whole Iran in the first radioactive glass desert on Earth.
I can see it. It's real, I swear. I also just took a lot of LSD.;)

Anyway, why not placing them in places nearer Iran, like Turkey, Georgia or Pakistan? Expecially Turkey and Georgia would be on the same route, but would strike when the missile is still in the first phase of flight, hence slower.




You've obviously never shot trap. You don't target the bird as soon as its out of the catapult--you wait til you've got a predictable flight pattern to lock onto, usually around midflight. It vastly increases your chances of shooting down the target--same principle of targetting nukes in transit.

The missiles in questio (The Ground Based Interceptor) are designed to intercept ICBMs during their mid-course phase.

The interceptor launch sites must be placed at a location in front of the mid-course trajectory of the missile, preferably over 1000km away or more from the launch site.

They are useless for intercepts during boost phase (which is what intercepting launches would be), and they are also useless for terminal phase intercepts (intercepting from short range launches which is what intercepting IRBM or SRBM launches from Russia would be if the target was Europe).

As for ICBMs flying to the US from Russia, the interceptors would also be useless for this, as the ICBMs would be flying away from the interceptor site.

I think what they don't like is the continued presence of US military forces in general in Europe, especially in former Warsaw Pact nations. It means they can't influence them as much, and can't sell them any weapons.

In terms of sheer weapon sales, the Russians make a lot of money selling to anyone they can. They don't have a missile that can match the PAC-3 Patriot, the SM-3 Standard, or the Ground Based Interceptor for intercepting missiles - missiles that they sell to anyone with the cash.

It's bad enough for both France and Russia - their sales of radars, missiles, and other military stuff overseas has been stifled by the worldwide perception that their stuff is essentially useless crap if the US is going to shoot back.

About all they can sell that people expect will work are mines, rifles, and RPGs. Everything else is just an expensive target (or useful only for flyovers at military parades).
Also very true.

Because of this.

(excerpt from wikipedia)
Outer Space Treaty
Main article: Outer Space Treaty
The Outer Space Treaty, considered by the Legal Subcommittee in 1966. Later that year, agreement was reached in the General Assembly. The treaty included the following principles:

the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries and shall be the province of all mankind;
outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all States;
outer space is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means;
States shall not place nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit or on celestial bodies or station them in outer space in any other manner;
the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes;
astronauts shall be regarded as the envoys of mankind;
States shall be responsible for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental activities;
States shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects; and
States shall avoid harmful contamination of space and celestial bodies.
In summary, the treaty initiated the banning of signatories' placing of nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in outer space. The United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union signed the treaty and it entered into effect on 10 October 1967. As of January 1, 2005, 98 States have ratified, and an additional 27 have signed the Outer Space Treaty.
(bold mine)
I'm sorry but in hindsight at least, that was/is a horrible treaty on so many levels.

I'm sorry but in hindsight at least, that was/is a horrible treaty on so many levels.

Didn't stop the Chinese from blowing a satellite into chunks recently, making thousands of little "hazards to navigation".

Let Russia be upset. No one cares if they are. When they stop attacking Estonia using cyberspace then maybe we can talk.

Didn't stop the Chinese from blowing a satellite into chunks recently, making thousands of little "hazards to navigation".

Link?

Anyway, the purpose of an ABM system is to grant the safety of ICBM sites to launch a retribution strike. Destroying -let's say- 100 ICBM in LEO will result in a huge fallout of radioactive matter from the sky, making Chernobyl look like a piece of cake in compariso

Even having 100 times the amount of Chernobyl's casualties (56 direct deaths and 9,000 cancer deaths later on) is better then having a strategic nuclear weapon impact in one of your big cities.

Link?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801029.html

Let's see how America would react if Russia built its own missile defense systems in Canada and Mexico. Russians aren't being paranoid; they're simply trying to be realistic here. Putin believes that the West played in hand for the Ukrainian incident (the Orange movement I believe). With the war in Iraq, Western confrontation with Iran, military aid to Georgia (by America), Western oil deals with Kazakhstan, installations of missile interceptors next to its borders by America, how would you expect Russia to react? I believe America is strategically trying to carve out its own global resources without any potential competition from the rising economies (India, China, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, etc). That's why we hear countries like China venturing to Africa where American boots are not present right now but to stop China’s expeditions into Africa, America plays the human rights card. For example, China gets oil from Sudan, now America is trying to convince the world that Chinese money for Sudanese oil is what is arming the Janjawiid militia which is aided by the current Sudanese government. With all due respect, I don’t see Chinese troops trying to siphon off Sudan’s oil and trying to start a civil war. Suddenly the term genocide is used in every speech made by American representatives about Sudan’s case, I wonder why. Have we forgotten the Rwanda genocide, when America tried to force anyone (in the UN) from saying the events that was occurring in Rwanda at the time was not “genocide” so no Western involvement would be needed if that word was not used. If only Rwanda had commercial oil or something equivalent that America would really care about. Western governments don’t really care about Africans or Middle Easterners or Latin Americans or Eastern Europeans, they only care about what these people are standing on and what is there to be made out of that.

Let's see how America would react if Russia built its own missile defense systems in Canada and Mexico.

Good luck with that. Canada would not agree to that. They do not like Putin.

Russians aren't being paranoid; they're simply trying to be realistic here. Putin believes that the West played in hand for the Ukrainian incident (the Orange movement I believe).

As opposed to Russia who DID play a hand in it and got its hand slapped.

With the war in Iraq, Western confrontation with Iran, military aid to Georgia (by America), Western oil deals with Kazakhstan, installations of missile interceptors next to its borders by America, how would you expect Russia to react?

About the same as they had all throughout the Cold War.

I believe America is strategically trying to carve out its own global resources without any potential competition from the rising economies (India, China, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, etc).

That is how the world works.

That's why we hear countries like China venturing to Africa where American boots are not present right now but to stop China’s expeditions into Africa, America plays the human rights card.

And we all know that China is a saint :rolleyes:

For example, China gets oil from Sudan, now America is trying to convince the world that Chinese money for Sudanese oil is what is arming the Janjawiid militia which is aided by the current Sudanese government. With all due respect, I don’t see Chinese troops trying to siphon off Sudan’s oil and trying to start a civil war.

They are just preventing the UN from doing anything about the genocide that is going on there. Same with the French too.

Suddenly the term genocide is used in every speech made by American representatives about Sudan’s case, I wonder why.

Check the speeches. Other world leaders (including Annan I believe) have used that word about Darfur too.

Have we forgotten the Rwanda genocide, when America tried to force anyone (in the UN) from saying the events that was occurring in Rwanda at the time was not “genocide” so no Western involvement would be needed if that word was not used.

No but have you forgotten that the Chinese have been styming anything in the UN dealing with Sudan?

Putin believes that the West played in hand for the Ukrainian incident (the Orange movement I believe).

How horrible of them.

Supporting liberal noviolent movements and opposing tyrannical semi-fascist leaders like that.

And we all know that China is a saint :rolleyes:


You mean like how saintly the US was by supporting numerous tyrants and murderous lunatics throughout the last 60 years or so as long as they kept resources flowing and a buffer against communism?

Hypocrisy really annoys me.

Very positive decision. As the red fascism revives in Moscow there has to be done something to secure Western Europe and to show that 1939-40 won't ever repeat. And this system is one of the means to ensure that. Very wise step by U.S.

Recent events in Estonia, Georgia, Latvia and Lithuania say it all. And these countries could be only the beginning.

You mean like how saintly the US was by supporting numerous tyrants and murderous lunatics throughout the last 60 years or so as long as they kept resources flowing and a buffer against communism?

Hypocrisy really annoys me.

Notice that I did not say anything about the United States because the US was not mentioned in the post. I am well aware of who the United States has supported in the past.

Two russian generals -now working as military analysts and teachers in military schools- were interviewed. They both claimed that the placing of US ABM systems in Poland (missiles) and Czech Republic (radars) isn't aimed at stopping a volley of ballistic missiles launched from Iran or some other ME country at the USA - missiles would have been better placed in Caucasus (Georgia is an ally of the US) if that was their purpose.

Don't be ridiculous. Current dispute is nothing compared to Russia's outrage what missles in Georgia, which is former USSR republic and member of CIS and has currently extremely bad relations with Russia, would cause.

You mean like how saintly the US was by supporting numerous tyrants and murderous lunatics throughout the last 60 years or so as long as they kept resources flowing and a buffer against communism?

Hypocrisy really annoys me.

Expediency is a bitch.

We're on Russia's side now? Sweet! Time to become Neo-Nazis! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDHvnNkk7m0)

Well, what an awkward turn of events...I'm glad to see Neo-Nazis are embracing diversity...*drinks self to death*

Hypocrisy really annoys me.

It annoys us all...:( we should start a PSA about it, we'll call it propaganda

Denying Russia access to space would be an extraordinary military threat. So all you would need is someone who highly values their liberty and believes the US wants to compromise Russia's sovereignty, and you could face a pre-emptive nuclear strike before the US is able to develop any space weapons.Russia has been bending for Bush -all the way-.. I am not holding my breath.

the question is China: can Bush make them bend-over ?

the question is China: can Bush make them bend-over ?

I rather doubt that.

"Isn't Bush's policy of Space superiority going against the International Space Treaty?"---UN Protectorates

not at all. if you read the policy, the point is to be able, should a threat emerge, to prevent an adversary from making use of space assets. That is not illegal. Now, if he were to say 'Hey, Iran, you've been annoying us lately, but haven't done anything really threatening, so we're just going to prevent your access to space as a means of putting pressure on you'.....that would be illegal.

The capability is perfectly legal. How it is used can be legal or illegal

Last week on the italian news channel RAINews24 there was an interesting glance at the US ABM program.

Two russian generals -now working as military analysts and teachers in military schools- were interviewed. They both claimed that the placing of US ABM systems in Poland (missiles) and Czech Republic (radars) isn't aimed at stopping a volley of ballistic missiles launched from Iran or some other ME country at the USA - missiles would have been better placed in Caucasus (Georgia is an ally of the US) if that was their purpose. Also, the small number of interceptor missiles (just 10) makes it unlikely that they're aimed at intercepting any kind of ICBM, not just the russian ones, because of the low kill/missile ratio.
Instead, they claimed, the most likely purpose of the US missiles placed in Poland is to intercept and destroy LEO targets and space vectors launched from the european part of Russia. This would be consistent with the speeches given by Pres.Bush about the US having right to unlimited space access and to preventing other countries from gaining space superiority.

What do you think? I don't know if it's true (well, Bush is known to throw money out of the window just to fuel the contractors of the Pentagon, no matter how useless the program, isn't he? And the russians are usually a bit paranoid, also....), but it sounds very interesting and insightful.

Well good luck to the USA with flushing their money down the toilet with Star Wars 2

The best reason for the Russians being actually bothered by this is that the radars are pretty powerful and could cover vast parts or Russia. All the other stuff is fabricated.

It's really about two things: the first is that Russia still can't deal with the fact that Eastern Europe is moving towards greater integration with the EU and NATO. The second is that Putin has managed to find a wedge issue that allows various European politicians to get into a fight with the US, which in a geopolitical sense (and I think Putin is a lot better at thinking in huge strategic terms than the West at the moment) can't hurt Russia at all.

You know something, OP, I wouldn't doubt these Russians for a second. After Stalin the Russians tended to be the more level headed of the two sides during the Cold War...shoe banging aside...

America has had its fair share of insane plots and schemes in the past so I do not doubt this for a second.

On the other hand...I don't trust a race of people that don't speak English. Furthermore, I don't trust the Russians.

Iam a product of the 80s. Rejoice.

Recent events in Estonia, Georgia, Latvia and Lithuania say it all. And these countries could be only the beginning.

Like russian-speakers citizens of the Baltic republics getting kicked off by the police from their own, legally bought homes to give the apartments to the heirs of the nazis who fled when the Wehrmacht had to run away... yeah right.

"Isn't Bush's policy of Space superiority going against the International Space Treaty?"---UN Protectorates

not at all. if you read the policy, the point is to be able, should a threat emerge, to prevent an adversary from making use of space assets. That is not illegal. Now, if he were to say 'Hey, Iran, you've been annoying us lately, but haven't done anything really threatening, so we're just going to prevent your access to space as a means of putting pressure on you'.....that would be illegal.

The capability is perfectly legal. How it is used can be legal or illegal

Can we have the ISA then?

I have always wanted a space launch capability to be made here...

Can we have the ISA then?

I have always wanted a space launch capability to be made here...
UK/Australia already have space launch capability, or at least we did in the 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow

You know something, OP, I wouldn't doubt these Russians for a second. After Stalin the Russians tended to be the more level headed of the two sides during the Cold War...shoe banging aside...

America has had its fair share of insane plots and schemes in the past so I do not doubt this for a second.


What are you talking about? They drove their economy into the ground just because they felt some bizarre need to compete with the US militarily. By the end, they were spending over 50% of their total economic output on the military, where the US never passed 5%. In the late seventies nearly 70% of their total economic output was being generated by slave labor! That sounds totally irrational to me.

On the other hand...I don't trust a race of people that don't speak English. Furthermore, I don't trust the Russians.

I smell a racist here.

Iam a product of the 80s. Rejoice.

Um yea. I am product of the 80s myself and yet have more sense.

Still does it really matter where they put the cash machines as long as they don't charge to take money out?

What are you talking about? They drove their economy into the ground just because they felt some bizarre need to compete with the US militarily.
I don't think it is very bizarre to avoid getting nuked and/or invaded...

In the late seventies nearly 70% of their total economic output was being generated by slave labor! That sounds totally irrational to me.

That sounds quite a strong sentence to me, and quite disputable to boot, unless you provide some source (no, the "Black book of communism" isn't a reliable source since it included in the "victims of communism" all the russian who died in WW2 at the hands of the nazis)


On the other hand...I don't trust a race of people that don't speak English. Furthermore, I don't trust the Russians.
I smell a racist here.
So do I. Anyway, who cares about the racist monoglot.

UK/Australia already have space launch capability, or at least we did in the 70s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow

It seems like Aus were part of it, in a test/decommissioning kind of way. That was more the U.Ks venture anyway.

Hooray for the (mid-late) 1980s!

Like russian-speakers citizens of the Baltic republics getting kicked off by the police from their own, legally bought homes to give the apartments to the heirs of the nazis who fled when the Wehrmacht had to run away... yeah right.

BS. The fact that USSR nationalized apartments, former owners as wealthier part of society oftenly faced repressions unless they were wise enough to escape in time, and then gave part of those to Russians that it used to colonize those areas does not make those Russians legal owners of those appartments. And I know that in Estonia, and probably also in other Baltic states people are treated equally in that issue, Estonians who got appartments such way also lose them. Btw Russia, which uses every opportunity to scream how Russians are discriminated in Baltic states, has not notably complained about that.

What are you talking about? They drove their economy into the ground just because they felt some bizarre need to compete with the US militarily. By the end, they were spending over 50% of their total economic output on the military, where the US never passed 5%. In the late seventies nearly 70% of their total economic output was being generated by slave labor! That sounds totally irrational to me.

Haha, well, I haven't had a good laugh in awhile. You may notice I highlighted two points in your post. The first point is that, while you may not agree with the arms buildup of the Cold War, the context of that statement displays an acute ignorance of the circumstances surrounding the Cold War, and, indeed, international relations generally. Allow me to explain that "some bizarre need" was quite rational and pragmatic. In the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States were the two superpowers, and the world was held in an equilibrium of sorts known as bipolarity. The struggle between Washington and the Kremlin was tenuous, with each side guarding its words and actions so as not to provoke ah, shall we say, direct conflict. The "bizarre need" to compete militarily was driven by the necessity to maintain strength, or the perception thereof, so as not to be viewed as weaker than the other. It was testosterone on a grandiose scale, but necessary nonetheless. For more, I suggest you take some classes on international relations and study a little bit of history regarding the Cold War.

The second bolded point is more to do with numerical accuracy. I believe the USSR committed between 8-12% of its GDP to compete with the US, which spent about 3-5%. 50% is an astronomically large number and I am not entirely sure it is accurate.

I don't think it is very bizarre to avoid getting nuked and/or invaded...
And you're buying the claim that the US was planning on nuking or invading Russia?

It was Russian imperialism that spawned the American military buildup and development of NATO, not some desire to sweep into Russia and take it over. All the actions of the United States after the Second World War were designed to create an integrated and peaceful world through the Bretton-Woods Institutions and the United Nations. The Soviets were the ones who rejected them and engaged in supporting open aggression first.

Further NATO and Warsaw Pact military doctrine show that the Russian fears to be unfounded. NATO was designed around playing a defensive role, in an attempt to slow Soviet forces drive through Germany. The Russians, on the other hand, made use of a military that was primarily offensive in nature. Not only did it have vast tank superiority to NATO, but the USSR developed highly accurate nuclear first strike weapons well ahead of the United States. The US didn't develop these types of nuclear weapons for fear of provoking the USSR.

If anything, Russia was an over paranoid, over muscled tyrannical monster.


That sounds quite a strong sentence to me, and quite disputable to boot, unless you provide some source (no, the "Black book of communism" isn't a reliable source since it included in the "victims of communism" all the russian who died in WW2 at the hands of the nazis)

Walter LaFeber's book, as well as several other credible sources.

Haha, well, I haven't had a good laugh in awhile. You may notice I highlighted two points in your post. The first point is that, while you may not agree with the arms buildup of the Cold War, the context of that statement displays an acute ignorance of the circumstances surrounding the Cold War, and, indeed, international relations generally. Allow me to explain that "some bizarre need" was quite rational and pragmatic. In the Cold War, the Soviet Union and the United States were the two superpowers, and the world was held in an equilibrium of sorts known as bipolarity. The struggle between Washington and the Kremlin was tenuous, with each side guarding its words and actions so as not to provoke ah, shall we say, direct conflict. The "bizarre need" to compete militarily was driven by the necessity to maintain strength, or the perception thereof, so as not to be viewed as weaker than the other. It was testosterone on a grandiose scale, but necessary nonetheless. For more, I suggest you take some classes on international relations and study a little bit of history regarding the Cold War.

The second bolded point is more to do with numerical accuracy. I believe the USSR committed between 8-12% of its GDP to compete with the US, which spent about 3-5%. 50% is an astronomically large number and I am not entirely sure it is accurate.

Don't talk to me like I'm a child, I fully know what the Soviet Union was trying to do, and I'm deriding it as an entirely irrational course of action. It was certainly not a necessary move on their part, merely a paranoid prestige issue.

Further, I'm discussing the latter years of the Soviet Union, especially the later years under Brezhnev. Earlier in the Cold War your numbers would be accurate, during the time of Khrushchev perhaps. The development of the 50% number is closely linked the real economic shrinkage that the USSR experienced in the late seventies, the costs of the Afghanistan invasion, all whilst being confronted with American military increases in the latter years of the Carter administration.

Don't talk to me like I'm a child, I fully know what the Soviet Union was trying to do, and I'm deriding it as an entirely irrational course of action. It was certainly not a necessary move on their part, merely a paranoid prestige issue.

You say you understand what the Soviet Union was trying to do. By what reasoning do you claim it was unnecessary?

Further, I'm discussing the latter years of the Soviet Union, especially the later years under Brezhnev. Earlier in the Cold War your numbers would be accurate, during the time of Khrushchev perhaps.

Agreed.

You say you understand what the Soviet Union was trying to do. By what reasoning do you claim it was unnecessary?


That it impoverished the country in the name of military prestige.

They bought something they couldn't afford, and it destroyed their economy and wracked their country.

I fear that in recent years the US has begun to redo this very mistake.

That it impoverished the country in the name of military prestige.

Hmm.

You are Stalin. You are poised with the most powerful land force in Europe and Asia, ready to begin discussions with the victorious allies over the fate of Western Europe, with an eye toward expanding control over West Germany. You do not want another devastating world war, and your people are eager to strike back against the aggressors. The balance of power is in your favor--then you find that the Americans have the atomic bomb. Your dreams for an East Asian sphere of influence are shattered, suddenly the balance of power is way out of whack. You have the Red Army--and no bomb. Later, after the USSR gains the Bomb, the threat of a massive invasion of Western Europe is the primary impetus for those allied against you to join together and simultaneously bring them to the bargaining block.The threat of nuclear war looms in the background, but it is the West's constant fear of conventional military inadequacy that that keeps their imperialism in check.

Would you, as Stalin, as Khrushchev, Beria, et al, suddenly cast aside the primary bargaining tool, the most important political weapon you possess: the Western perception that you are capable of sweeping aside their conventional forces in Western Europe?

Because the cost of doing so is risking far more. The West would perceive this weakness, begin pressing for more, realizing that they now have the upper hand. The only fallback would be nuclear weapons, and suddenly the battle is not on agreeable terms. Backed into a corner, what are the available options?

That it impoverished the country in the name of military prestige.

They bought something they couldn't afford, and it destroyed their economy and wracked their country.

I fear that in recent years the US has begun to redo this very mistake.

It may be a mistake. Yes, I agree that it most certainly is. But a necessary, inevitable mistake nonetheless. As long as the US stays below the 5% mark, we should be fine...research suggests that around 6% is when you start seeing the economic strain evident in the Soviet Union.

Hmm.

You are Stalin. You are poised with the most powerful land force in Europe and Asia, ready to begin discussions with the victorious allies over the fate of Western Europe, with an eye toward expanding control over West Germany. You do not want another devastating world war, and your people are eager to strike back against the aggressors. The balance of power is in your favor--then you find that the Americans have the atomic bomb. Your dreams for an East Asian sphere of influence are shattered, suddenly the balance of power is way out of whack. You have the Red Army--and no bomb. Later, after the USSR gains the Bomb, the threat of a massive invasion of Western Europe is the primary impetus for those allied against you to join together and simultaneously bring them to the bargaining block.The threat of nuclear war looms in the background, but it is the West's constant fear of conventional military inadequacy that that keeps their imperialism in check.

Would you, as Stalin, as Khrushchev, Beria, et al, suddenly cast aside the primary bargaining tool, the most important political weapon you possess: the Western perception that you are capable of sweeping aside their conventional forces in Western Europe?

If my economy could no longer support continued such massive external military actions the rational thing to do would be to retrench. Cut some deals with NATO, most likely guaranteeing the division of Germany for x number of years, the neutrality of Poland, Central Europe and the Balkans. Redevelop my military force into a primarily nuclear deterrent capability, cut land forces massively and dedicate resources to economic growth and increasing prosperity.

What the Soviet leadership failed to realize is that they were bankrupting their country, and whereas under my advising they would suffer diminished prestige, following the course they took led to the eventual dissolution of their country and discrediting of their ideology.

It may be a mistake. Yes, I agree that it most certainly is. But a necessary, inevitable mistake nonetheless. As long as the US stays below the 5% mark, we should be fine...research suggests that around 6% is when you start seeing the economic strain evident in the Soviet Union.

I'm concerned about more than just military bugetary indiscretions, though. It's the overall federal largess that has been such a problem, and has only become worse under the Bush administration that concerns me.

If my economy could no longer support continued such massive external military actions the rational thing to do would be to retrench. Cut some deals with NATO, most likely guaranteeing the division of Germany for x number of years, the neutrality of Poland, Central Europe and the Balkans. Redevelop my military force into a primarily nuclear deterrent capability, cut land forces massively and dedicate resources to economic growth and increasing prosperity.

What the Soviet leadership failed to realize is that they were bankrupting their country, and whereas under my advising they would suffer diminished prestige, following the course they took led to the eventual dissolution of their country and discrediting of their ideology.

Well, the free world is certainly thankful you weren't in charge :). But I doubt the practicality--though don't discount the possibility--of enacting such changes without significant interparty shake-ups. You may not care as much about pride, but most of the members of the Communist party did very much...and when a leader's beliefs fall out of line, there tend to be sudden brain hemorrhages and unaccountable cases of vacations to Siberia.

You have convinced me that the actions were not necessary. But I maintain the inevitability of the Soviet Union's course, and the rationale thereof.

I'm concerned about more than just military bugetary indiscretions, though. It's the overall federal largess that has been such a problem, and has only become worse under the Bush administration that concerns me.

Bush has certainly fallen way out of line with traditional conservative principles. There needs to be some serious downsizing of the federal government--it has grown too much, and Bush carries much of the blame.

The problem with these deployed missile systems is not their message to Russia--though I fear it may give Putin added credence should he desire to institute a new Soviet Union--but the continued extension of American power. Soon we will be beyond our limits, like both Britain and Rome before us. Perhaps we have already become overextended...it is only a matter of time before the walls come crashing down.

You have convinced me that the actions were not necessary. But I maintain the inevitability of the Soviet Union's course, and the rationale thereof.

Knowing the mindset of the leadership of the USSR and the institutional cultures, I do concede that it would have been nearly impossible to enact reforms without certain, very stringent, circumstances being met.

Instead, they claimed, the most likely purpose of the US missiles placed in Poland is to intercept and destroy LEO targets and space vectors launched from the european part of Russia. This would be consistent with the speeches given by Pres.Bush about the US having right to unlimited space access and to preventing other countries from gaining space superiority.


Yeah, but so what? Lets be frank here...

I don't think it is very bizarre to avoid getting nuked and/or invaded...

And yet they neglected their own people. They basicly ran themselves into the ground. The US at least managed to keep their economy afloat despite running up deficits.

That sounds quite a strong sentence to me, and quite disputable to boot, unless you provide some source (no, the "Black book of communism" isn't a reliable source since it included in the "victims of communism" all the russian who died in WW2 at the hands of the nazis)

If it is refutable, go ahead and refute it.

So do I. Anyway, who cares about the racist monoglot.

I do actualy. I care about everyone.

That's actually a really good idea...if the US could maintain control over who gets in to space, we'd be set for having first access to the moon and places beyond. Not to mention it would in fact protect against Iran as well, so we get to kill two birds with one stone.
I don't really see how it protects against Iran. As someone stated earlier, Georgia would make more sense.

Russia's only bitching because they lack the ability to deploy ABMs like we do. I say screw them and do what we think is a good idea for our strategic priorities, not what Russia thinks is a good idea. They're only interested in what's good for them, and we should only be interested in what's good for us...I damn well know they'd never extend the same courtesy to us if our positions were swapped. They're not our allies, and they're our main competitor in space, so why not do what we can to put pressure on the competition? There's no prize for being a team player.
Such is the condition of global politics. No country is truly an "ally" of another. All do what is in their best interest. It should be no surprise Russia is not happy with this, I can understand their position.

Besides, I'm sure Eastern Europe would love to thumb their noses at their oppressive Cold War overlord, even if it means siding with the US.
Many people who are where these missiles are not happy with what the US has done.

IMany people who are where these missiles are not happy with what the US has done.

Link?

I don't really see how it protects against Iran. As someone stated earlier, Georgia would make more sense.


Not really, as a base in Georgia would have far less response time to a missile fired from Iran. I'd suspect that these Russian generals who are claiming to be experts on the matter are far from experts.

Link?

From the article;

"The US wants to put a radar in the Czech Republic with interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland to counter what it says is a missile attack threat by Iran or other "rogue states."

The US proposal has created rifts within NATO, outright hostility from Russia and opposition from many Czechs."

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2553625,00.html

From the article;

"The US wants to put a radar in the Czech Republic with interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland to counter what it says is a missile attack threat by Iran or other "rogue states."

The US proposal has created rifts within NATO, outright hostility from Russia and opposition from many Czechs."

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2553625,00.html

Any polling data?

From the article;

"The US wants to put a radar in the Czech Republic with interceptor missiles in neighboring Poland to counter what it says is a missile attack threat by Iran or other "rogue states."

The US proposal has created rifts within NATO, outright hostility from Russia and opposition from many Czechs."

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2553625,00.html

Now from a recognized sorce.

Now from a recognized sorce.

Deutsche-Welle is a first rate source, it doesn't provide us with any real information, though.

Deutsche-Welle is a first rate source, it doesn't provide us with any real information, though.

Ah no wonder I did not recognize it. Its german.

Any polling data?

Ah, polls are worthless anyway. Give me a result and I'll get you the numbers.

You can be just as sure that many Canadians'd love to thumb their nose at their own oppressive Cold War overlord, too - even if it meant siding with Vladimir Putin

Dobbsworld does not speak for real Canadians.

Canada is a nation of complete and total Jerks.. They side with no one. We prefer to sit at the side of a conflict and mock all parties involved, claiming moral superiority, while at the same time hoarding the majority of the worlds resources for ourselves and staunchly refusing to share them with nations in desperate need of them.

As for Russia. Damn rights they should be pissed about the Defense Shield. The shield is disrupting the status quo that has existed since '91 and is an escalation. The Russians didn't start this by developing the new warhead, the Americans did be deploying this shield.

You can't blame the Russians for trying to maintain the status quo.

Dobbsworld does not speak for real Canadians.

Canada is a nation of complete and total Jerks.. They side with no one. We prefer to sit at the side of a conflict and mock all parties involved, claiming moral superiority, while at the same time hoarding the majority of the worlds resources for ourselves and staunchly refusing to share them with nations in desperate need of them.

As for Russia. Damn rights they should be pissed about the Defense Shield. The shield is disrupting the status quo that has existed since '91 and is an escalation. The Russians didn't start this by developing the new warhead, the Americans did be deploying this shield.

You can't blame the Russians for trying to maintain the status quo.

GRAVEDIG! GRAVEDIG! GRAVEDIG!!!

Oh and the deployment of the defense shield is 100% legal I might add.

If anything, I would argue that Russian opposition to the deployment of interceptors in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic have everything to do with a resurgent Russia, and a drive to increase the Russian sphere of influence (God forbid anyone suggest that any country besides the US would ever seek to impose their will on another country!) into Eastern Europe. They want to re-extend control into Eastern Europe, and when the US cements its ties and close relations (not control, mind you, but very close relations, we don't dictate policy to the E. European states like the USSR once did) with Eastern Europe it makes it all the more difficult for Russia to move back in.

This is not a reborn Soviet Union, not in the slightest. Gone is the veneer of claims of "equality" and "revolution" that the USSR used to attempt to justify its Empire. No, Russia is working to build a New Russian Empire, and the US is getting in their way.

That's why Putin is pissed.

GRAVEDIG! GRAVEDIG! GRAVEDIG!!!

Oh and the deployment of the defense shield is 100% legal I might add.

SAGE

Of course it's totally legal to deploy the shield with the host nation's permission. Just like how it's totally legit for the Russians to tweak their already existing nuclear weapons stockpile.

I don't think it says anywhere that you can't make your bombs more efficient.

SAGE

Of course it's totally legal to deploy the shield with the host nation's permission. Just like how it's totally legit for the Russians to tweak their already existing nuclear weapons stockpile.

I don't think it says anywhere that you can't make your bombs more efficient.

nope. But then...Russia can claim things all they want. Wether it is true or not, is a totally different story.

If anything, I would argue that Russian opposition to the deployment of interceptors in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic have everything to do with a resurgent Russia, and a drive to increase the Russian sphere of influence (God forbid anyone suggest that any country besides the US would ever seek to impose their will on another country!) into Eastern Europe. They want to re-extend control into Eastern Europe, and when the US cements its ties and close relations (not control, mind you, but very close relations, we don't dictate policy to the E. European states like the USSR once did) with Eastern Europe it makes it all the more difficult for Russia to move back in.

This is not a reborn Soviet Union, not in the slightest. Gone is the veneer of claims of "equality" and "revolution" that the USSR used to attempt to justify its Empire. No, Russia is working to build a New Russian Empire, and the US is getting in their way.

That's why Putin is pissed.
Given that Russia has no ability to take Eastern Europe back and that Putin has less pro-Russian regimes in the vicinity than Yeltsin did, I'd say that 'New Russian Empire' is out of question.

Still, we don't like American missiles appearing out of nowhere where they weren't before. Bad for internal politics, y'know.

GRAVEDIG! GRAVEDIG! GRAVEDIG!!!

Oh and the deployment of the defense shield is 100% legal I might add.

Of course it's 100% legal, nobody said it wasn't.

It's also 100% legal for russia to start building a few more (hundred) MERV warheads

Given that Russia has no ability to take Eastern Europe back and that Putin has less pro-Russian regimes in the vicinity than Yeltsin did, I'd say that 'New Russian Empire' is out of question.

Still, we don't like American missiles appearing out of nowhere where they weren't before. Bad for internal politics, y'know.

Be that as it may, those missiles are there legally.

Of course it's 100% legal, nobody said it wasn't.

It's also 100% legal for russia to start building a few more (hundred) MERV warheads

I did not say it was not legal for them to do so. Let them. Their economy cannot afford it.

Be that as it may, those missiles are there legally.

and once again...so? Nobody said they weren't. However just because it's legal doesn't make the US, or any other country, immune from consequences of its actions. It's legal, yes it is, this is true. But merely because something is legal doesn't give anyone free pass to do it without fear of any reprucussions.

Actions still have consequences, whether they are legal actions or otherwise.

I did not say it was not legal for them to do so. Let them. Their economy cannot afford it.

if you're as much of an expert on international economies as you are on international law corny, I'd believe just the opposite.

Especially since while large scale rapid buildup is what brought the US out of a depression, and that specialized, focused industry can help create jobs...

if you're as much of an expert on international economies as you are on international law corny, I'd believe just the opposite.

Especially since while large scale rapid buildup is what brought the US out of a depression, and that specialized, focused industry can help create jobs...

And this has what to do with Russia's economy? Nothing. You are talking about the US and not russia. I am talking about Russia.

I know full well that our build up brought us out of the Depression. Guess what? That was back when we were supplying arms to Great Britain, USSR, and to a degree China. Then we were attack and thus we needed more equipment for our own soldiers. Hence the military industry boom during a war.

I see you forgot about that little incident we tend to call World War II.

Now again...back in 1980s, the US once again did a mass military buildup. USSR's economy was already bankrupt and when they began even more spending, it eventually collapsed their economy. I see you forgot about that too.

And this has what to do with Russia's economy? Nothing. You are talking about the US and not russia. I am talking about Russia.

I know full well that our build up brought us out of the Depression. Guess what? That was back when we were supplying arms to Great Britain, USSR, and to a degree China. Then we were attack and thus we needed more equipment for our own soldiers. Hence the military industry boom during a war.

I see you forgot about that little incident we tend to call World War II.

Are you really this thick or are you just pretending?

SAGE

Of course it's totally legal to deploy the shield with the host nation's permission. Just like how it's totally legit for the Russians to tweak their already existing nuclear weapons stockpile.

I don't think it says anywhere that you can't make your bombs more efficient.

Yeah. Look at the new Topol/Bulava ICBM.

Whoo-hoo! Arms Race! More employment for physicists like me! Boom! Bang! Sci-fi goodies! :rolleyes:

Are you really this thick or are you just pretending?

Neither. Stating facts that were not provided as evidence that a military buildup is only as good as the economy that does it. Our economy was robust enough to handle it whereas the USSR's economy was not robust to handle it. If Russia is not careful, the exact same thing is going to happen.

He who fails to learn the lessons of history, Neo Art, are doomed to repeat them.

Given that Russia has no ability to take Eastern Europe back and that Putin has less pro-Russian regimes in the vicinity than Yeltsin did, I'd say that 'New Russian Empire' is out of question.

Still, we don't like American missiles appearing out of nowhere where they weren't before. Bad for internal politics, y'know.

Part of why I fully believe that Putin is acting irrationally and prematurely. He wants to rebuild something that no longer exists, and he wants to cut as many obstacles out as possible.


You gotta remember that these are something like ten interceptors, an amount that could, at most, shoot down three midcourse missiles. This cannot even be considered the tiniest of threats to the Rodina.

Yeah. Look at the new Topol/Bulava ICBM.

Whoo-hoo! Arms Race! More employment for physicists like me! Boom! Bang! Sci-fi goodies! :rolleyes:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/topolm.htm

Info on the Topol M missile.

Part of why I fully believe that Putin is acting irrationally and prematurely. He wants to rebuild something that no longer exists, and he wants to cut as many obstacles out as possible.


You gotta remember that these are something like ten interceptors, an amount that could, at most, shoot down three midcourse missiles. This cannot even be considered the tiniest of threats to the Rodina.

Who knows what goes on behind a Russian mind.

Who knows what goes on behind a Russian mind.

Once upon a time George Kennan nailed it on the head...but he's mainly been wrong since.

Neither. Stating facts that were not provided as evidence that a military buildup is only as good as the economy that does it. Our economy was robust enough to handle it

we

were in

a depression

Who knows what goes on behind a Russian mind.

yes them russian, wily and cagey creatures. Thoroughly unsophisticated unlike us intelligent americans.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/04/russia.putin.ap/index.html

Now he's trying to blackmail the Western Europeans.

Putin is using these missiles as nothing more than a pretext for his increasingly aggressive stances.

yes them russian, wily and cagey creatures. Thoroughly unsophisticated unlike us intelligent americans.

Strawman argument and you know it.

Russia is culturally very different from the US, and the leadership culture is even more so. No one is arguing that the Russian government is dumb, unsophisticated or incompetent, rather that their decision making processes are different. Understanding Russian decision making processes is not easy.

Strawman argument and you know it.

Russia is culturally very different from the US, and the leadership culture is even more so. No one is arguing that the Russian government is dumb, unsophisticated or incompetent, rather that their decision making processes are different. Understanding Russian decision making processes is not easy.

and I'm sure the same could be said of us from an outside perspective. In fact given how cultural systems vary throughout the world, decision making processes vary with culture, and a whole slew of regional and cultural elements affect that particular situation, I don't see why it was even necessary to say "a russian mind" as opposed to simply "someone else's mind" other than to try and enforce some outmoded, unsubstantiated and borderline xenophobic cold war holdover

Part of why I fully believe that Putin is acting irrationally and prematurely. He wants to rebuild something that no longer exists, and he wants to cut as many obstacles out as possible.
Putin is on his way out. And it is prudent -- in order to provide for the orderly transtition -- to unite the people against an external threat. The US is the best threat one can think of.


You gotta remember that these are something like ten interceptors, an amount that could, at most, shoot down three midcourse missiles. This cannot even be considered the tiniest of threats to the Rodina.
A PR threat nonetheless. ;)

yes them russian, wily and cagey creatures. Thoroughly unsophisticated unlike us intelligent americans.
:rolleyes: I haven't been on the board for a year or so, but not much have changed.

and I'm sure the same could be said of us from an outside perspective. In fact given how cultural systems vary throughout the world, decision making processes vary with culture, and a whole slew of regional and cultural elements affect that particular situation, I don't see why it was even necessary to say "a russian mind" as opposed to simply "someone else's mind" other than to try and enforce some outmoded, unsubstantiated and borderline xenophobic cold war holdover

It's fully justified to focus in on the specialization of Russian cultural beliefs and biases when discussing the decision making processes of the Russian leadership. In this instance the attempt is to understand Russian decision making processes and to do that, one must be able to grasp the cultural and institutional systems of the other country: In this case that other country is Russia. Hence, the "Russian mind."

If we just generally try to understand the rest of the world as "different" from us, then we really don't get anywhere. We have to understand that understanding another country, whosoever they might be, requires specialization and an understanding of their culture.

Saying the "Russian mind", "American mind", "Thai mind" or anyone elses leadership structures is important in understanding how another country's leadership came to a decision.

I'd understand the tension if we aimed a few ICBM at them.. but anti-missile defence systems? Yes like they'd hurt.

I doubt even America is stupid enough to shoot down anything commercially launched on purpose.

Wish Russia would just realize it's being a fool, apart from their joke of a military... Putin's head shines to much.

Hi

Well, I took the time to read the whole 10 pages but didn't find anything posted about this recently.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/04/russia.putin.ap/index.html

Just the perfect time to unveil their new toy, huh?

Love the UT smilies :gundge: :sniper: :D

Russia doesn't like our interceptors because they represent a threat. Besides, it'd be far against their interests to ever launch a nuclear attack in Europe. No, the real reason Russia is sore is because the US is placing military assets in its former sphere of influence. They'd be upset, too, if they placed any assets in the Caucasus, also part of their old sphere.

Who knows what goes on behind a Russian mind.

"I hate my job"
"I wonder if I can earn enough to go to Ukraine for a holiday"
"This is good soup"

Well Putin has responded quite moderately considering all things, Russia generally does act with moderation in these things, but clearly protects it's interests, the US on the other hand throws a giant hissy fit the size of Paris Hilton whenever weapons are in range of it, see Cuban Missiles Crisis, the Russians had been dealing with missiles pointed at it from Turkey for years, but somehow when the favor is returned it's not on. US Hypocrisy, it never gets old, if I were Putin or the Chinese, I'd paint US targets in Europe and elsewhere and train missiles on them, just to show them.

I did not say it was not legal for them to do so. Let them. Their economy cannot afford it.

Thats why they are supporting an export based arms system.

"I hate my job"
Nah, medicine is interesting.

"I wonder if I can earn enough to go to Ukraine for a holiday"
Not Ukraine -- the UK. :)

"This is good soup"
It deinitely was good, with lots of shrimp in it. :)

Russian nationality or an ethnic Russian?

Nah, medicine is interesting.

Good, some more medical people (doctor?) to help treat TB.

Not Ukraine -- the UK. :)

They both start with U.

It deinitely was good, with lots of shrimp in it. :)

I prefer curried vegetable/beef soups to seafood (though some Thai soups are nice).

Russian nationality or an ethnic Russian?
Both, actually.



Good, some more medical people (doctor?) to help treat TB.
I'm a gynaecologist.



They both start with U.
Really? Wow.



I prefer curried vegetable/beef soups to seafood (though some Thai soups are nice).
To me, those little shrimp are incomparable.

"I hate my job"
"I wonder if I can earn enough to go to Ukraine for a holiday"
"This is good soup"

*Inserts obligatory vodka reference*

"Where's my vodka?"

we

were in

a depression

In the 1930s, you are right that we are. It took WW II to pull us out of said depression.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/04/russia.putin.ap/index.html

Now he's trying to blackmail the Western Europeans.

Putin is using these missiles as nothing more than a pretext for his increasingly aggressive stances.

Putin is an idiot. If he thinks this is going to work, then he is entirely mistaken.

It's fully justified to focus in on the specialization of Russian cultural beliefs and biases when discussing the decision making processes of the Russian leadership. In this instance the attempt is to understand Russian decision making processes and to do that, one must be able to grasp the cultural and institutional systems of the other country: In this case that other country is Russia. Hence, the "Russian mind."

If we just generally try to understand the rest of the world as "different" from us, then we really don't get anywhere. We have to understand that understanding another country, whosoever they might be, requires specialization and an understanding of their culture.

Saying the "Russian mind", "American mind", "Thai mind" or anyone elses leadership structures is important in understanding how another country's leadership came to a decision.

Thank you and well said

*hands you a cookie*

I'm a gynaecologist.

The power of the Pap Smear (Papanikolaou?)!

So are you specialising (from GP) now or can you start learning in that field from the start?

Really? Wow.

It should have been 'Meh, they both start with U'

To me, shrimp are incomparable.

I prefer roasted shrimp on skewers.

*Inserts obligatory vodka reference*

In Soviet Russia, Vodka inserts refrence of YOU!

Well Putin has responded quite moderately considering all things, Russia generally does act with moderation in these things, but clearly protects it's interests, the US on the other hand throws a giant hissy fit the size of Paris Hilton whenever weapons are in range of it, see Cuban Missiles Crisis,

Um yea...nuclear missiles 90 miles off your coast will make you stand up and yell. Guess what? We had missiles in Turkey too that was closer to the USSR than where they placed their missiles. We removed the missiles from Turkey and they removed the missiles from the USSR. WOW!!!

That is a big difference than placing Anti-Missile systems near Russia and placing Nuclear Bombs near the US. Please try to keep that in mind that these are Anti-Missile Systems and nothing more. These missiles are of no threat to the integrity of Russia.

Please understand the situation before commenting on it.

The power of the Pap Smear (Papanikolaou?)!

So are you specialising (from GP) now or can you start learning in that field from the start?
The latter. Now I'm a PhD.


It should have been 'Meh, they both start with U'
Quite. I'll go to Croatia first. :)


I prefer roasted shrimp on skewers.
Mmm, delicious.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they've got other reasons to be cheesed off by this, to be honest. Like "you could shoot down a massive 10 of our several thousand missiles if you had a 100% success rate - oh noes".

I don't really see what Poland and the Czech Republic think they're doing by allowing these bases. Didn't they both sort of learn that foreigners with weapons on their land = loss of their territory in seconds?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they've got other reasons to be cheesed off by this, to be honest. Like "you could shoot down a massive 10 of our several thousand missiles if you had a 100% success rate - oh noes".

I don't really see what Poland and the Czech Republic think they're doing by allowing these bases. Didn't they both sort of learn that foreigners with weapons on their land = loss of their territory in seconds?

Especially when it is U.S policy to have bases inside of other countries to use as political bargaining chips.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they've got other reasons to be cheesed off by this, to be honest. Like "you could shoot down a massive 10 of our several thousand missiles if you had a 100% success rate - oh noes".

I don't really see what Poland and the Czech Republic think they're doing by allowing these bases. Didn't they both sort of learn that foreigners with weapons on their land = loss of their territory in seconds?

Um yea... back in the 30s. And that was army troops that entered their territory. No one is trying to take over their territory today.

I wish there was some other choice for the Eastern Europeans other than the de-regulated corporate business and commerce of the EU, or falling under a Neo-Soviet Eastern Bloc once more.
Meh, we're giving them plenty of money via the EU, it's probably for the best, although the skills drain in Poland et al must be pretty depressing.

Um yea... back in the 30s. And that was army troops that entered their territory. No one is trying to take over their territory today.
... what about the Cold War stuff...

... what about the Cold War stuff...

Well there was that as well. :D

Well there was that as well. :D
Consider also the fact that relations between Poland and Russia are about as frosty as a fine Budvar, and you kind of get the picture that this is only going to antagonise people and all.

Consider also the fact that relations between Poland and Russia are about as frosty as a fine Budvar, and you kind of get the picture that this is only going to antagonise people and all.

Yes but there is a nation between Russia and Poland and Russia knows if they do anything, they will get a smack in the nose.

Yes but there is a nation between Russia and Poland and Russia knows if they do anything, they will get a smack in the nose.
The nation between Russia and Poland has an army comprised of three old men in a tractor, and in a recent raising of the military budget, two of them know have spears.

Not much Poland could do if Russia was interested in taking it out.

Last week on the italian news channel RAINews24 there was an interesting glance at the US ABM program.


It is an escalation of arms. It doesn't need to be any more than that.

Some would say Iraq was Bush's plan to maintain personal control of that big White House. Restarting the Cold War must be his legacy for the Republicans, since not nearly as many people are willing to buy into a second pointless middle eastern war.

The nation between Russia and Poland has an army comprised of three old men in a tractor, and in a recent raising of the military budget, two of them know have spears.

Not much Poland could do if Russia was interested in taking it out.
Taking out a NATO member? Our government may be bad, but it's not batshit crazy. Even during the height of the Cold War the USSR did not do anything like that.

This is complete BS. It's quite obvious the US wants to start the Cold War again. Iran has no interest in sending missiles to Europe and North Korea is a joke. The ABMs are also bizarrely placed to intercept missiles from Iran. I strongly support Russia in this case.

This is complete BS. It's quite obvious the US wants to start the Cold War again. Iran has no interest in sending missiles to Europe and North Korea is a joke. The ABMs are also bizarrely placed to intercept missiles from Iran. I strongly support Russia in this case.

We want to start the cold war all over again? Pray tell how did you get to that conclusion?!

Well Putin has responded quite moderately considering all things, Russia generally does act with moderation in these things, but clearly protects it's interests, the US on the other hand throws a giant hissy fit the size of Paris Hilton whenever weapons are in range of it, see Cuban Missiles Crisis, the Russians had been dealing with missiles pointed at it from Turkey for years, but somehow when the favor is returned it's not on.

The objection to the Cuban missiles was the fact that the deployment was done under the cover of secrecy. The secret deployment runs contrary to the US deployment of the Jupiter's to Turkey, which had been openly deployed after open Congressional debate, at the request of Turkey.

The secret deployment of these missiles is what's fundamentally different. Deploying them without letting the outside world know gives the air of prepartion for attempting to achieve strategic surprise with a massive nuclear strike against the US.

Knowing the American mind at this point in time, Khrushchev would have to have realized that surprise attack is constantly a fear of every American leader. This was merely twenty years after the country was shocked out of isolation by Pearl Harbor, and the psychological effect of that event cannot be discounted. Kennedy agreed with the metaphor that they 'felt like they'd detected the Nagumo's carriers midcourse in the Pacific.'

Combining the massive, secret deployment of missiles with Khrushchev's constant demands on West Berlin and massive conventional land superiority in Europe an American can easily surmise the worst.

Did the U.S keep the fact that it was building missile launch systems in Turkey a secret?

Did the U.S keep the fact that it was building missile launch systems in Turkey a secret?

Somewhat. They at least didn't go out and declare it. It hardly mattered if they were in turkey anyway, we had bombers 24/7 at the failsafe line, and had mid range ICMBs in most of europe, with subs carrying ICBMS in the arctic.

We want to start the cold war all over again? Pray tell how did you get to that conclusion?!

Minimal attention to detail should suffice.