NationStates Jolt Archive

Russia wants its military officers to be present at all times at the planned U.S. missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic to make sure Russia is not a target, the Russian foreign minister said Tuesday.

Sergey Lavrov warned that if Poland and the Czech Republic resisted the demand, they could "devaluate" the latest U.S. proposals intended to ease Russia's concerns about the missile shield.

"We are mostly interested in two things: permanent presence of our officers and reliable means of technical control" to make sure that a battery of 10 U.S. missile interceptors in Poland and a radar system in the Czech Republic are not directed at Russia, Lavrov said.

linkiness (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/08/europe/russia.php)

So are the Russians being paranoid or are they justified (or both)?
What do you think?

Nuclear weapons are terrifying things. The only thing preventing their use for the past 60 years has been the fact that the person using them wouldn't be around long enough to gloat about it.

Taking that away, and allowing a party use them without any consequences, disrupts the balance of power, and so Russia is rightly concerned about what that will mean. That doesn't mean the US shouldn't deploy the shield - just that it's unfair to condemn the Russian's as 'paranoid'.

http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/imageSnag/putin201.jpg


Russia is trying to make itself seem more important than it is...and it fears that if it does not keep trying to make the missile defense system seem like a major issue, (which it isn't as Czech and Poland are SOVERIGN, yes Russia..the cold war is over) it feels that it will look on the global stage that it has backed down from America and the West.

Thus, I think it's doing this to keep up the facade that this is an issue in an attempt to keep it's chest puffed out to the Amis.

So are the Russians being paranoid or are they justified (or both)?
Neither, they see that they can't stop the installation so they are trying to negotiate as good terms as possible. I don't see this happening given the fact that Poland has some unpleasant experiences with Russian troops stationed on its territory.

The US has actually made the offer to Russia in order to get them to shut up with their complaining. It appears Russia is going to take the US up on that offer now.

I think that Russia has a right to be worried, just as America did during the Cuban Missile crisis. America seems to think that it has a right to decide what is best for the entire world. And it enforces it`s view by presuring a country to do as it says. Sometimes, admitedly the view might be right, but surelyAmerica should leave it to the UN, not invade a country just because it doesn`t like the way it does things. I`m not saying Russia doesn`t behave badly too, but at the moment I definately think that the missiles shouldn`t be placed there at all, but if they are then I think Russia has a right to make sure it`s not a target.

But then again, I`m a member of CND so I`m against all nuclear missiles. :)

Nuclear weapons are terrifying things. The only thing preventing their use for the past 60 years has been the fact that the person using them wouldn't be around long enough to gloat about it.
And Russians are well aware of the fact that the nuclear shield is completely uncapable of doing that.

I think that Russia has a right o be worried, just as America did during the Cuban Missile crisis. America seems to think that it has a right to decide what is best for the entire world. I`m not saying Russia doesn`t behave badly too, but at the moment I definately think that the missiles shouldn`t be placed there at all, but if they are then I think Russia has a right to make sure it`s not a target.

But then again, I`m a member of CND so I`m against all nuclear missiles. :)
That fails because this is a defensive shield while what the Russians deployed in Cuba was an offensive missile system to more easily target America....

The US has actually made the offer to Russia in order to get them to shut up with their complaining. It appears Russia is going to take the US up on that offer now.
AFAIR the offer was to allow the Russian inspections on site, not to permanently station their officers there.

http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/imageSnag/putin201.jpg


Russia is trying to make itself seem more important than it is...and it fears that if it does not keep trying to make the missile defense system seem like a major issue, (which it isn't as Czech and Poland are SOVERIGN, yes Russia..the cold war is over) it feels that it will look on the global stage that it has backed down from America and the West.

Thus, I think it's doing this to keep up the facade that this is an issue in an attempt to keep it's chest puffed out to the Amis.

This.

It would be a neat thing of the US to cooperate with everyone in this matter, spanning a planetary wide system which can combat all ICMs from where-ever they are started to where-ever they are heading.

Of course this would promote the conventional warfare even more. But a one sided shield would increase the risk of a nuclear war.
Because we all know since Rumsfeld, that "war is doable again"... and that obviously mean war will be done. Not to think what'll happen if 'Nuclear War' is doable again.

I think the USA is a dangerous country. Russia has the right to be worried.

That fails because this is a defensive shield while what the Russians deployed in Cuba was an offensive missile system to more easily target America....

But this is what I`m saying, how does Russia know that it`s a defensive sheild ? For all they know it could be put there because the US wants to, or wants to be ready for, attacking Russia. Just because the US says it`s defensive, doesn`t make it naturally true. Infact for all we know it could
be an offensive system.

I find Russia's continuing aggression worrying.
Lavrov warned Tuesday that a U.S. failure to respond to Moscow's concerns would prompt Russia to deploy weapons capable of piercing the missile shield to protect its security. He spoke Tuesday after the latest round of Russian-Polish missile defense consultations in Moscow also failed to narrow differences.
And the US certainly isn't helping, mind you with a President like G.W. Bush there's only so much they can do anyway.
I think it'l dissolve into spying on each other. Let's hope we've learned a thing or two from the cold war eh?

That fails because this is a defensive shield while what the Russians deployed in Cuba was an offensive missile system to more easily target America....

That's simply a matter of definition. You say it's 'defensive'; I could easily say it's 'offensive' as it allows the US to use its nuclear arsenal in a way it couldn't before.

Having a strong defensive capacity is just as big a part of military might as offensive power.

I could easily say it's 'offensive' as it allows the US to use its nuclear arsenal in a way it couldn't before.
In which way exactly?
Having a strong defensive capacity is just as big a part of military might as offensive power.
Against the nuclear arsenal of Russia the nuclear shield is similarly efective as a wet paper towel.

That's simply a matter of definition. You say it's 'defensive'; I could easily say it's 'offensive' as it allows the US to use its nuclear arsenal in a way it couldn't before.

Having a strong defensive capacity is just as big a part of military might as offensive power.

not necessarily, i could use the French Maginot line as an example that Defensive strength does not offer much offensive strength. And one part of the French Defensive mindset, meant they didn't have any offensive elements of rally against the German re-militarisation of the Rhineland.

However nowadays, having a flexible military means it's harder to discern what is defensive and offensive forces, and typically increasing expendature in the Airforce and Navy all point to an offensive and aggressive foreign policy used by the US and the UK.

Anyone with GoogleEarth can tell you that missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic will not be able to intercept Russian missiles headed for the US. Russia is being intentionally obtuse to gain international attention.

Against the nuclear arsenal of Russia the nuclear shield is similarly efective as a wet paper towel.

Not necceserily. If the US and Russia declare war then undoutedly all, or at least most of the nations in NATO will join America. And all of NATO`s combined nuclear arsenal against Russia`s would be like a Tiger attacking a mouse.

I'd say the Russians are being completely reasonable. Slightly paranoid in that I doubt we'd nuke them, but given our current foreign policy not too out there.

Considering that half the purpose of these installations is to piss Russia off, Russia is perfectly within its rights to make demands such as this.
Its all politics, and has little to nothing to do with defending the US from missiles.

Not necceserily. If the US and Russia declare war then undoutedly all, or at least most of the nations in NATO will join America. And all of NATO`s combined nuclear arsenal against Russia`s would be like a Tiger attacking a mouse.

...except the mouse is carrying bubonic plague, and the tiger, his family, and his entire species die.

Russia has hundreds of ICBMs, and hundreds more SLBMs. Even if these sites in Eastern Europe were somehow able to intercept Russian missiles, it wouldn't matter. It's the difference between being destroyed 6 times over or 7 times over.

linkiness (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/08/europe/russia.php)

So are the Russians being paranoid or are they justified (or both)?
What do you think?

First off, the Russians are merely putting on bluster and trying to puff themselves up to seem more important than they actually are. There is little doubt in my mind that the Russian leadership knows that these interceptors are nowhere near being a threat to Russia. They've thousands of nuclear warheads, and this system is extremely limited. There is no threat to Russia from this, whatsoever.

Regardless, I say let the Russians put inspectors at the sites, I'd prefer it if they weren't military, rather, civilian technical specialists, but I say let 'em. In a way, it would sort of defuse their babbling.

Considering that half the purpose of these installations is to piss Russia off, Russia is perfectly within its rights to make demands such as this.
Its all politics, and has little to nothing to do with defending the US from missiles.

Boohoo! Poor Russia! We're intruding on the territory that they used to claim as their empire! Boohoo!

That's simply a matter of definition. You say it's 'defensive'; I could easily say it's 'offensive' as it allows the US to use its nuclear arsenal in a way it couldn't before.



If it were a full scale missile shield, with tens of thousands of interceptors ringing the entirety of Russia, maybe. But, given that it is an extremely limited shield, it is clearly not. To interpret this as an offensive tool is ridiculous.

Boohoo! Poor Russia! We're intruding on the territory that they used to claim as their empire! Boohoo!

You know, the USSR may not of been great, infact is was probably worse than hell for some (most?) people in it, but what right does the US, who invades countries illegaly and who openly supports rebel groups in other countries. Wake Up! The US is not perfect, in some cases it`s much much less than perfect. America does not have a right to pass judgement on all other living beings YOU ARE NOT GOD

YOU ARE NOT GOD

prove it. :p

Anyone with GoogleEarth can tell you that missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic will not be able to intercept Russian missiles headed for the US. Russia is being intentionally obtuse to gain international attention.
Yep, any Russian launch at the US would be an over the north pole launch. These are put in a place to intercept Iranian missile trajectories, not Russian.

You know, the USSR may not of been great, infact is was probably worse than hell for some (most?) people in it, but what right does the US, who invades countries illegaly and who openly supports rebel groups in other countries. Wake Up! The US is not perfect, in some cases it`s much much less than perfect. America does not have a right to pass judgement on all other living beings YOU ARE NOT GOD

Relevance?

It seems like your post is nothing more than a "America does some bad stuff" post, and I don't particularly see the relevance.

The United States is not invading any country by deploying a limited missile shield in Eastern Europe. It is being done in cooperation with NATO allies, in return for certain benefits (such as Poland's modernization of their air defense system). The US is not passing judgment on any country, nor destroying anyone, nor pretending to be God.

All I'm saying is the argument that this might offend Russia because it's "in their back yard" is of no moral value.

You know, the USSR may not of been great, infact is was probably worse than hell for some (most?) people in it, but what right does the US, who invades countries illegaly and who openly supports rebel groups in other countries. Wake Up! The US is not perfect, in some cases it`s much much less than perfect. America does not have a right to pass judgement on all other living beings YOU ARE NOT GOD
What did we do? We wanted protection from a potential threat. We negotiated with a sovereign nation install countermeasures to said potential threat. Now third party nation (who happened to dominate aforementioned nation) comes in and complains, even though these countermeasures do not effect them.

And it is our fault...how?

prove it. :p

Damn! I was getting all angry about this then you go and make me laugh, now you`ve gone and broken my consentration :rolleyes:

If it were a full scale missile shield, with tens of thousands of interceptors ringing the entirety of Russia, maybe. But, given that it is an extremely limited shield, it is clearly not. To interpret this as an offensive tool is ridiculous.

However, one must ask themselves how effective such a defensive system is. The answer: Dip-bupkis. As in practically useless in terms of intended use. So, in reality, this is nothing more than a political show, intended to "AH-HA!" the Russians, in the end, methinks.

So what is gained by the entire affair: A pissed off Nuclear power, a useless defensive system, and a bunch of old Warhawk Amerkins saying "We'll show dem commies!".

Proof of uselessness, please. Tests of the system in the pacific have gone quite well.

Damn! I was getting all angry about this then you go and make me laugh, now you`ve gone and broken my consentration :rolleyes:

I do what I can. :D

Proof of uselessness, please. Tests of the system in the pacific have gone quite well.

Pssst... little secret...

The earth is round.

Pssst... little secret...

The earth is round.

...and?

Proof of uselessness, please. Tests of the system in the pacific have gone quite well.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that results achieved in controlled tests can be significantly different than results achieved in real-life situations.

...and?

Missiles don't have to travel west.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that results achieved in controlled tests can be significantly different than results achieved in real-life situations.

I can't answer for the GBI variant (Ground Based Interceptor), but the SM-2 has been used in an uncontrolled test - one in which the firing ship was not told of the exercise or its details and was merely given permission to fire on any missiles it saw. It successfully downed a ripple of missiles on a few seconds' notice.

Shorter range variants such as the PAC-3 have been tested in combat during the initial stages of OIF, and were 100% successful in shooting down multiple incoming short range ballistic missiles with no human intervention.

Of course, they also shot down a British aircraft in the area (software has a habit of doing that).

However, one must ask themselves how effective such a defensive system is. The answer: Dip-bupkis. As in practically useless in terms of intended use. So, in reality, this is nothing more than a political show, intended to "AH-HA!" the Russians, in the end, methinks.

So what is gained by the entire affair: A pissed off Nuclear power, a useless defensive system, and a bunch of old Warhawk Amerkins saying "We'll show dem commies!".

It's targeted at the Iranians, whose limited long-range missile capabilities are what the interceptors are designed to counter. This is actually worth a degree of value against said country.

It has nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing and more nothing to do with Russia.

It's targeted at the Iranians, whose limited long-range missile capabilities are what the interceptors are designed to counter. This is actually worth a degree of value against said country.

It has nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing and more nothing to do with Russia.

Putin is counting on people being ignorant like Seangoli. Your clarification will fall on deaf, idiot ears.

Proof of uselessness, please. Tests of the system in the pacific have gone quite well.
In very controlled conditions, last I heard. And I still wouldn't call it quite well.

In very controlled conditions, last I heard. And I still wouldn't call it quite well.

You are conflating three different missiles.

In very controlled conditions, last I heard. And I still wouldn't call it quite well.

Of course the problem here is that it is a weapons system, the U.S. military is not going to admit to any shortcomings until the system is no longer in use, and quite possibly not even then.

So are the Russians being paranoid or are they justified (or both)?
What do you think?
Utter waste of time for the Russians, but fair enough.

If they're going to launch nukes at the US, then their advisors will probably be shot, and even if they're not, 10 interceptor missiles will be little good against the hundreds, if not thousands, of Russian ICBMs.

Utter waste of time for the Russians, but fair enough.

If they're going to launch nukes at the US, then their advisors will probably be shot, and even if they're not, 10 interceptor missiles will be little good against the hundreds, if not thousands, of Russian ICBMs.

Not to mention the fact that the missile defense systems are not even in a position to shoot down Russian missiles that are being fired at the U.S.

Not to mention the fact that the missile defense systems are not even in a position to shoot down Russian missiles that are being fired at the U.S.
Depends where you're firing at, and where you're firing from in Russia.

Both. Russians are paranoid, and from their paranoid perspective I can see why they might be worried.

I say let them. Everything will go much easier. Hell, we could bring the Russians in on the project. Build a tracking station in Russia (maybe Volgograd or someplace south of there), so we have extra eyes on Iranian missiles. I think that would eliminate their fears.

Well, then, I guess we should keep military officers on site at their missile defense sites. Quid pro quo.

That's simply a matter of definition. You say it's 'defensive'; I could easily say it's 'offensive' as it allows the US to use its nuclear arsenal in a way it couldn't before.

HAHA!! Yea right!!! :D This is comedy.

You realize what the odds of knocking out a nuclear missile are? You realize that this is not designed to knock out a full fledged nuclear strike?

Having a strong defensive capacity is just as big a part of military might as offensive power.

The only part of your statement that is right.

Depends where you're firing at, and where you're firing from in Russia.

True, it certainly isn't capable of reducing a Russian missile strike on the U.S. by any significant amount though.

I think this political back and forth is actually very important as precedence.
If the Russians act now and lay claim to a procedure they agree to, then they can claim same procedures whenever the US feels like building more bases.
And more bases, a stronger shield, will come eventually.
So true, the current missile bases are not effective against Russia. But the pure existence and use of the technology is a threat to their deterring capabilities.
Of course they want as much say in it as early as possible.

Personally, I'd like to see the UN construct a planetary anti-missile shield, effectively eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons. They would control all the soldiers stationed at said facilities, and would hold the codes required to launch the missiles.

Of course, this would make conventional, ground-based warfare even worse, but then... it's better than a nuclear winter.

Of course, this would make conventional, ground-based third world war possible.
Fixed.

Personally, I'd like to see the UN construct a planetary anti-missile shield, effectively eliminating the threat of nuclear weapons. They would control all the soldiers stationed at said facilities, and would hold the codes required to launch the missiles.

Of course, this would make conventional, ground-based warfare even worse, but then... it's better than a nuclear winter.

Exactly my thoughts from page 1 :)

Boohoo! Poor Russia! We're intruding on the territory that they used to claim as their empire! Boohoo!

You missed my point.
Russia is no better or worse than the USA for all that. Its POLITICS. The USA puts missiles in what Russia thinks of as its backyard, so Russia responds by attempting to impose its own will and ensure its former puppets stay in line and dont get any ideas about, say, joining NATO.
Its a situation rather similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember that? When a situation involves a doomsday weapon, there is little difference between 'defensive' and 'offensive' missiles. A defence against MAD renders Russia's detterent null and void.
(I am aware that the missiles in question are supposed to be mid-flight interceptors or something like that, but I also know that such information should be taken with a grain of salt. Again, not taking sides on the issue, just saying that the Russians arent required to believe everything the US says either.)

So yeah, the Russians DO have a right to make such demands. Whether or not the US listens to them...is up to the US, now, isnt it?

You missed my point.
Russia is no better or worse than the USA for all that. Its POLITICS. The USA puts missiles in what Russia thinks of as its backyard, so Russia responds by attempting to impose its own will and ensure its former puppets stay in line and dont get any ideas about, say, joining NATO.

Too late for Russia, most of Eastern Europe has already signed up, or tried to.

More than that, the US human rights record, its behavior towards its neighbors and allies, and its influence in the world are far more positive than the Russians.

Its a situation rather similar to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember that? When a situation involves a doomsday weapon, there is little difference between 'defensive' and 'offensive' missiles. A defence against MAD renders Russia's detterent null and void.

This isn't a defense against Mutually Assured Destruction, though. This system has absolutely nothing to do with MAD, and it doesn't alter the strategic balance at all. This system is too limited to have anything to do with Mutually Assured Destruction. Russia has roughly 8,400 nuclear weapons, as compared to no more than a dozen American interceptors in Eastern Europe. To say that this alters the strategic balance is just ridiculous. This has nothing to do with the strategic balance, and everything to do with Russian bluster.

Further, given that this does not alter the strategic balance, that the weapons are clearly not offensive, and clearly not targeted for use against Russia, it is entirely incomparable to the Cuban Missile Crisis. First off, this is being done in the open, there are no attempts to carry this out in secret, quite unlike the CMC.

Further, when the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, in secret, the strategic balance of power had been significantly changed. These missiles gave the Soviet Union a unique capability to launch multiple nuclear tipped missiles on the United States at very, very short notice, and the deployment radically increased the number of guaranteed immediate strikes that the Soviets had. In fact, it provided strong first strike incentives to the Soviet Union, because the short flight time of the missiles made a decapitation strike possible.

The Ground Based Midcourse Defense does none of these things. It is just too limited.


So yeah, the Russians DO have a right to make such demands. Whether or not the US listens to them...is up to the US, now, isnt it?

And they're demands are irrational and wrong.

A defence against MAD renders Russia's detterent null and void. (I am aware that the missiles in question are supposed to be mid-flight interceptors or something like that, but I also know that such information should be taken with a grain of salt. Again, not taking sides on the issue, just saying that the Russians arent required to believe everything the US says either.)
Here's the document contaning a rough descrition of the proposed system:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34051.pdf
It will include up to 10 interceptor missiles. The Russians have over 3000 strategic nuclear warheads (http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nukestatus.html). When, of rather if the US started to expand this system by adding hundreds of missiles, the Russians would have a reason to worry.
edit: ah, nice to have such a good company :)

this missile thing seems more of a way for america to show off its military might. This will in no way hinder Russias nuclear arsenal, as frankly, even if each of these defense missiles managed to take down a nuke, Russia could still destroy the whole world. As to Russia's insistence on having troops there, if you were a country and knew someone was building a missile system nearby, especially a former enemy, wouldn't you want to at least have someone there to check it out if possible? Russia is ust being logical.

Maybe Russia should demand the right to put up similar systems in cuba and such central pacific counties to counter the 'threat of nukes from Mexico'

Fixed.

A third world war is already possible, really, it would just be a very, very short one.

So? The Polish don't have a backbone to stand up to Russia and we don't want a big fight with Russia so why not let 'em.

Nuclear weapons are terrifying things. The only thing preventing their use for the past 60 years has been the fact that the person using them wouldn't be around long enough to gloat about it.

Taking that away, and allowing a party use them without any consequences, disrupts the balance of power, and so Russia is rightly concerned about what that will mean. That doesn't mean the US shouldn't deploy the shield - just that it's unfair to condemn the Russian's as 'paranoid'.

No, they're not, because as anyone who knows anything about how these things work can tell you, the missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic would mean absolutely squat to the Russian nuclear arsenal just in quantity alone, let alone positioning.

Those missile defenses are there to prevent missiles from Middle Eastern countries, nothing more.

No, they're not, because as anyone who knows anything about how these things work can tell you, the missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic would mean absolutely squat to the Russian nuclear arsenal just in quantity alone, let alone positioning.

Those missile defenses are there to prevent missiles from Middle Eastern countries, nothing more.

Everyone for the US placing these missiles keeps on using the argument that those missiles wouldn`t be enough to destroy Russia`s weapons. But if the US launches it`s missiles first, then surely the huge ammount of life lost will be a huge blow to Russia. We`re not just talking about destroying missiles, but people too.

So? The Polish don't have a backbone to stand up to Russia and we don't want a big fight with Russia so why not let 'em.
Funny that when some other country agrees to something, it "doesn't have the backbone", but when it's the US of A, it's just being reasonable.
Double funny, because Poland has the backbone to stand up to Russia. Always had, no matter the circumstances, and had it broken on two occasions for its defiance.
Now it seems it is not relenting (http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12561163&PageNum=1) either.

Funny that when some other country agrees to something, it "doesn't have the backbone", but when it's the US of A, it's just being reasonable.

Agreed. This is what I meant in my YOU ARE NOT GOD post. I`m not saying all Americans are like this, just some. Just like some people in Britain are open homophobes and racists, unfortunately these people have big mouths so they tend to be heard more.

Funny that when some other country agrees to something, it "doesn't have the backbone", but when it's the US of A, it's just being reasonable.
Double funny, because Poland has the backbone to stand up to Russia. Always had, no matter the circumstances, and had it broken on two occasions for its defiance.
Now it seems it is not relenting (http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=12561163&PageNum=1) either.

QFT

Agreed. This is what I meant in my YOU ARE NOT GOD post. I`m not saying all Americans are like this, just some. Just like some people in Britain are open homophobes and racists, unfortunately these people have big mouths so they tend to be heard more.

:D

Further, when the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, in secret, the strategic balance of power had been significantly changed. These missiles gave the Soviet Union a unique capability to launch multiple nuclear tipped missiles on the United States at very, very short notice, and the deployment radically increased the number of guaranteed immediate strikes that the Soviets had.


You are correct, in that it significantly changed the strategic balance of power. But it did not favor one or the other. It equalized it. The plans for Cuban based strategic missiles were a counter to US medium range nuclear missile sites located in Europe along the Soviet border.

You are correct, in that it significantly changed the strategic balance of power. But it did not favor one or the other. It equalized it. The plans for Cuban based strategic missiles were a counter to US medium range nuclear missile sites located in Europe along the Soviet border.

In Turkey...

Everyone for the US placing these missiles keeps on using the argument that those missiles wouldn`t be enough to destroy Russia`s weapons. But if the US launches it`s missiles first, then surely the huge ammount of life lost will be a huge blow to Russia. We`re not just talking about destroying missiles, but people too.

Quite.
You just cant argue with some people about this sort of thing though. Apparently its totaly reasonable for the US to dick around with Russia, but the Russians responding is just Russia being an evil aggressive state that wants to devour its neighbors...
Which isnt to say that Russia isnt an aggressive state eager to reincorporate its neighbors into the Russian Empire, but rather that the other side doesnt exactly have a clean slate either.

You are correct, in that it significantly changed the strategic balance of power. But it did not favor one or the other. It equalized it. The plans for Cuban based strategic missiles were a counter to US medium range nuclear missile sites located in Europe along the Soviet border.

The fact, though, was that the USSR did have a significant, survivable nuclear deterrent that they could strike at the US with, even if the Jupiter missiles were launched at Moscow, makes one doubt seriously the deterrent nature of the Cuban missiles, and if their deterrent value was low, then one must question why they were placed their to begin with.

Quite.
You just cant argue with some people about this sort of thing though. Apparently its totaly reasonable for the US to dick around with Russia, but the Russians responding is just Russia being an evil aggressive state that wants to devour its neighbors...

Except, the location of the missile MCD Interceptors has nothing to do with Russia, it's not designed to antagonize Russia and it is totally irrelevant to the Russian strategic position. The system is well sited to be able to intercept missiles inbound from the Middle East.

The only reason it "antagonizes" Russia is because back during the "good old days" that Andaras seems to worship so much, these countries were under the Soviet boot, and the Russians still seem to think they have a title to them.


Which isnt to say that Russia isnt an aggressive state eager to reincorporate its neighbors into the Russian Empire, but rather that the other side doesnt exactly have a clean slate either.

One side has significantly less negative goals than the other. And at worst, the US is offering these states aid in defending their own national sovereignty from their asshole neighbor. Poland, for instance is getting a pretty sweet deal for all of this stuff.

No, they're not, because as anyone who knows anything about how these things work can tell you, the missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic would mean absolutely squat to the Russian nuclear arsenal just in quantity alone, let alone positioning.

Those missile defenses are there to prevent missiles from Middle Eastern countries, nothing more.
I believe somebody (Dyakovo? I am not going to hunt right now) may have mentioned this already but:
The Russians have to consider the possibility that the US will eventually build much larger and more effective missile-defense systems, which could impact the Russian deterrent capability. They need to insist, now, on setting the precedent that the US be open with them about what we are doing, or it will be too late, later.

One side has significantly less negative goals than the other. And at worst, the US is offering these states aid in defending their own national sovereignty from their asshole neighbor. Poland, for instance is getting a pretty sweet deal for all of this stuff.

Yes but if a country is told to do something, even if it does got many things in return, and if it hapens again and again, would the country still be a sovereign country or would it be a protectorate of the other nation ? And also, who`s to say the US doesn`t have almost exactly the same goals as Russia? Who exactly knows what happens behind the walls of the government except the government itself?

Yes but if a country is told to do something, even if it does got many things in return, and if it hapens again and again, would the country still be a sovereign country or would it be a protectorate of the other nation ? And also, who`s to say the US doesn`t have almost exactly the same goals as Russia? Who exactly knows what happens behind the walls of the government except the government itself?

So, wait, are you railing against the entire concept of countries having close relations with each other? Because, given that the US is a NATO ally with both Poland and the Czech Republic, it would seem to be a reciprocal relationship, quite unlike what the relationship those countries (or the countries which they were once constituent members of) with the Soviet Union, where Moscow actually dictated policy decisions to Warsaw and Prague.

To say that these countries are the protectorates of the United States is entirely incorrect, they are our allies, and we are bound to help them, much as they are bound to help us.

So, wait, are you railing against the entire concept of countries having close relations with each other? Because, given that the US is a NATO ally with both Poland and the Czech Republic, it would seem to be a reciprocal relationship, quite unlike what the relationship those countries (or the countries which they were once constituent members of) with the Soviet Union, where Moscow actually dictated policy decisions to Warsaw and Prague.

To say that these countries are the protectorates of the United States is entirely incorrect, they are our allies, and we are bound to help them, much as they are bound to help us.

No I`m not. All I`m asking is were is the division between becoming one nation (so to speak) and very close alliances between natons.

Except, the location of the missile MCD Interceptors has nothing to do with Russia, it's not designed to antagonize Russia and it is totally irrelevant to the Russian strategic position. The system is well sited to be able to intercept missiles inbound from the Middle East.

Reverse the situation. Russia just put a missile shield up in Mexico.
How do you think the US would react? Even if said missiles were irrelevant to the US strategic position, theyre still messing around in our backyard.

The only reason it "antagonizes" Russia is because back during the "good old days" that Andaras seems to worship so much, these countries were under the Soviet boot, and the Russians still seem to think they have a title to them.

See above. Its not right, I dont approve, but its how countries like Russia think. If you do something like this, theyre going to react. The US government KNOWS theyre going to react.
Its antagonistic.

One side has significantly less negative goals than the other. And at worst, the US is offering these states aid in defending their own national sovereignty from their asshole neighbor. Poland, for instance is getting a pretty sweet deal for all of this stuff.

And Russia was pleased to provide arms to North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, and a slew of other states.
But a lot of people consider that wrong for some reason.
Funny, eh?

Reverse the situation. Russia just put a missile shield up in Mexico.
How do you think the US would react? Even if said missiles were irrelevant to the US strategic position, theyre still messing around in our backyard.

Personally, I think the US would be right in laughing at Russia placing a similar system in Mexico. It would be totally irrelevant to the strategic position of the United States, and a titanic waste of funds, because there's no potential ballistic missile threat in to defend against in that region.



See above. Its not right, I dont approve, but its how countries like Russia think. If you do something like this, theyre going to react. The US government KNOWS theyre going to react.
Its antagonistic.

The goal, though, is not antagonistic. The goal is to help protect our allies from a limited missile threat originating to the South.



And Russia was pleased to provide arms to North Korea, North Vietnam, Iraq, and a slew of other states.
But a lot of people consider that wrong for some reason.
Funny, eh?

The obvious difference, being, of course, that the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic are democratically elected popular governments, members of the European Union, well behaved international citizens, etc., etc. The same cannot be said for any of those countries (besides North Vietnam, but that's a whole different story). There is a significant difference between Iraq and the Czech Republic.

No I`m not. All I`m asking is were is the division between becoming one nation (so to speak) and very close alliances between natons.

Far further away than it is near.

The NATO alliance allows for significant military and diplomatic cooperation, but policies are not dictated, and membership is voluntary. The US is not making demands of either country, rather, the US is asking for their assistance.

I believe somebody (Dyakovo? I am not going to hunt right now) may have mentioned this already but:
The Russians have to consider the possibility that the US will eventually build much larger and more effective missile-defense systems, which could impact the Russian deterrent capability. They need to insist, now, on setting the precedent that the US be open with them about what we are doing, or it will be too late, later.

It wasn't me unfortunately, it is a good point though...

But this is what I`m saying, how does Russia know that it`s a defensive sheild ? For all they know it could be put there because the US wants to, or wants to be ready for, attacking Russia. Just because the US says it`s defensive, doesn`t make it naturally true. Infact for all we know it could
be an offensive system.

Russia could be afraid that since the US would no longer be afraid of Nuclear attacks, the US could launch whatever they want knowing that no one could stop them.

Russia could be afraid that since the US would no longer be afraid of Nuclear attacks, the US could launch whatever they want knowing that no one could stop them.
Seeing opinions like that AGAIN makes me want to yell, "no, you are not entitled to an opinion until you go and check the FACTS!". :headbang:
Poland and the USA have already agreed to give Russian inspectors the access to the site.
The nuclear shield will consist of up to 10 interceptor missiles. Russia has 3000+ strategic warheads.

Considering renewed US belligerence, Russia is justified in acting this way. Seeing as how the missile defence shield would be useless to stop a Russian first strike but perfectly able to stop any remaining Russian missiles after a US first strike, as Foreign Affairs noted, Russia knows that the US is trying to bully them. That, and America's pushing for a third war with Iran, support of Kosovo's secession, and expansion of NATO, makes it obvious what the Federal Government's intentions are.

Seeing as how the missile defence shield would be useless to stop a Russian first strike but perfectly able to stop any remaining Russian missiles after a US first strike
According to Nipeng's figures, the first strike would have to take out 2,990 out of 3,000?

The most interesting thing about the whole story is that, according to polls, 70% of the Czech people doesn't want the radar.

Welcome to democracy! Yeah, right!

If Poland refuses to take the anti-missile sites, will Bush finally INVADE POLAND?

If Poland refuses to take the anti-missile sites, will Bush finally INVADE POLAND?

Maybe :D

In Turkey...

Ah yes, I had thought it was Turkey, but was not sure.

The fact, though, was that the USSR did have a significant, survivable nuclear deterrent that they could strike at the US with,


And vice versa. There were many plans for various means of delivering nuclear weapons by the US, including, but not limited to, hidden train carried launch systems, and of course, the much used SSBN class of missile submarines.

To be honest, all the Cuban installations did was just make doomsday arrive in the US a little sooner in the event of WWIII.

The biggest threat would have been the use of missile submarines located just off the Western Coast of America, and the launching of depressed trajectory missiles, meaning a 10 minute window from launch to impact in Washington DC, the classical decapitation strike.


even if the Jupiter missiles were launched at Moscow, makes one doubt seriously the deterrent nature of the Cuban missiles, and if their deterrent value was low, then one must question why they were placed their to begin with.

Because it was the counter to the Jupiter missiles in Turkey. A matter of tit for tat if you will.

Paranoid, as always.

I feel unnoticed, so quote myself from page 4 :(

I think this political back and forth is actually very important as precedence.
If the Russians act now and lay claim to a procedure they agree to, then they can claim same procedures whenever the US feels like building more bases.
And more bases, a stronger shield, will come eventually.
So true, the current missile bases are not effective against Russia. But the pure existence and use of the technology is a threat to their deterring capabilities.
Of course they want as much say in it as early as possible.

Personally, I think the US would be right in laughing at Russia placing a similar system in Mexico. It would be totally irrelevant to the strategic position of the United States, and a titanic waste of funds, because there's no potential ballistic missile threat in to defend against in that region.
I think rather differently.
I think the US would throw a fit, threaten to blockade/invade Mexico, and generally whine about Russia mucking about with its source of cheap labour.


The goal, though, is not antagonistic. The goal is to help protect our allies from a limited missile threat originating to the South.
So, youre saying the end justifies the means? Pissing off the guys with 10,000 nukes to keep us safe from the guys that might, at some point in the future, gain access to missiles with a long enough range to hit something further away than Turkey?
And thats a BIG if as long as Israel is around. You know how they get about the possibility of Arabs with nukes.

The obvious difference, being, of course, that the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic are democratically elected popular governments, members of the European Union, well behaved international citizens, etc., etc. The same cannot be said for any of those countries (besides North Vietnam, but that's a whole different story). There is a significant difference between Iraq and the Czech Republic.
Funny you should say that. We supplied weapons to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, South Vietnam and Korea, god knows how many South American regimes and rebel groups...none of which are particularly democratic, nor very good international citizens.
And at the time we supplied weapons to many Eastern European states, they were hardly better than Iraq. The Czech Republic, even now, is not a very nice place.

It wasn't me unfortunately, it is a good point though...

Indeed, it is a good arguement. I dont think the people argueing against Russia will bother with it, though.

I feel unnoticed, so quote myself from page 4 :(

Ah. That was, in fact, the post I was thinking of when I said "Somebody's made this point before, maybe Dyakovo, but..."
Nokvok, Dyakovo, you can see how my brain scrambled the one into the other. Dyslexics of the world, untie! You have nothing to lose but your china!

Har... at first I was like o.O?
But yes, ...kovo - nokvok, I see where it comes from.

p.s. (at least I haven't been called novok yet, which happens in 'every' forum, and isn't a type either).

Seeing opinions like that AGAIN makes me want to yell, "no, you are not entitled to an opinion until you go and check the FACTS!". :headbang:
Poland and the USA have already agreed to give Russian inspectors the access to the site.
The nuclear shield will consist of up to 10 interceptor missiles. Russia has 3000+ strategic warheads.
I'm entitled to my opinion even if you don't like it.
Go fuck yourself.

Yes I know the missile shield isn't going to really do that much, but that's not the point.

Perhaps the real reason, is to be 100% they aren't going to start expanding to include more missiles or whatnot?

the current system. It is worthless in regards to what Russia could throw out. It is however decent at shooting at rouge nations. Yeah accuracy is questionable but planning is to be able to shoot 3 to 12 interceptors at each Iranian launch so it is very possible that a threat from Iran can significantly be mitigated.


Russia isn't really paranoid about the current system even though they act like it. Russia is Paranoid about what 20, 30, or 50 years of development might do. in 20 to 50 years the missiles defense system would possibly be able to deflect or significantly mitigate a full nuclear assault. Russia no longer has the means to Advance it weapons technology in a significantly comparable way. they know this there fore they will oppose the development of a missile defense system every step of the way. Because even if we gave the technology to them we would also know how to countermand it with our ICBMs(since we made the defense technology).

Will Missile Defense development continue? YES Regardless if we stop doing it publicly it will continue to be developed. do you think that when we stopped SDI in the 80's it stopped? I mean come on a completely non functioning system in the 80's halted then just simply a few years after being restarted again in 00's we have a marginally functioning system. all they did was move it into secret development.

Is Russia Paranoid ? Yes. The US is unlikely to launch a nuclear strike against Russia once their arsenal is no longer a threat, because Russia on its toughest day is little more then a mild annoyance once the threat of nuclear launch has been removed.

Should Russia be acting the way it is ? No because regardless of how they act this will occur

I'm entitled to my opinion even if you don't like it.
And I'm entitled to yell at you in frustration!
Go fuck yourself.
Oh I love you too! :fluffle:
Perhaps the real reason, is to be 100% they aren't going to start expanding to include more missiles or whatnot?
I see how a permanent delegation on site might accomplish this task better than a periodical inspection. After all, it would have to be ejected prior to changing anything. But wouldn't refusing the inspectors an access to the site be just as telling?
The Russians know all that and are just trying to negotiate the best deal.

Russia has every right to see this through and ask for their officers to be there? Why? Its a little thing called a TREATY that the USA signed with Russia. It banned the development of ABM interceptors on both sides. Now with George Dealbreaker bushes little attempt to make the USA look more important then it really is, and try to make everyone terrified again so they will invest in that dead horse known as the US economy. After all what better way to scare people then to bring back the reminder of instant death from nuclear storm.

An ABM is a pretty good reminder. Russia has the right, as after all they kept to their treaty. Now russia had to develop a new generation of MIRV's, which in truth has made the ABM as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Basically...The USA has always been a nation of Oathbreakers. I dont think there is one treaty they have ever respected, including free trade. Also lets be honest, maybe russia cant advance signifigantly [SO wrong, they have deals with other nations to provide the cash for joint projects...the SAME way the USA does it now], but neither can america. Thanks to mr bush and years of cold war buildup stripping the USA of resources and skilled workers, they arent able to either. Also its funny to note that all the US military computer systems in service are designed and built in Canada. In fact most of the USA's technology is built by their allies now.

I believe somebody (Dyakovo? I am not going to hunt right now) may have mentioned this already but:
The Russians have to consider the possibility that the US will eventually build much larger and more effective missile-defense systems, which could impact the Russian deterrent capability. They need to insist, now, on setting the precedent that the US be open with them about what we are doing, or it will be too late, later.

That's a good point, one I hadn't considered.

I smell another Cold War coming.....or its already here?

I smell another Cold War coming.....or its already here?

Hmm, unlikely unless Russia aligns closely with China.

The Czech Republic, even now, is not a very nice place.

What???? You living in Ostrava?

if america wanted to allow russion missle silos in cuba, that would be a fair trade for american ones in poland or kosivo, or wherever it is in central europe the bushwacker wants to put the damd things.

and hell, would anyone trust, if there were russian missle silos in cuba, for them to be on fully automatics?

amercia got no sense of proportions. it ain't the center of the universe, and damd sure don't need to be.

=^^=
.../\...

if america wanted to allow russion missle silos in cuba, that would be a fair trade for american ones in poland or kosivo, or wherever it is in central europe the bushwacker wants to put the damd things.

and hell, would anyone trust, if there were russian missle silos in cuba, for them to be on fully automatics?

amercia got no sense of proportions. it ain't the center of the universe, and damd sure don't need to be.

=^^=
.../\...

Are you talking about nuclear missiles or a missile defense system?

if america wanted to allow russion missle silos in cuba, that would be a fair trade for american ones in poland or kosivo, or wherever it is in central europe the bushwacker wants to put the damd things.

and hell, would anyone trust, if there were russian missle silos in cuba, for them to be on fully automatics?

amercia got no sense of proportions. it ain't the center of the universe, and damd sure don't need to be.

=^^=
.../\...


You are the one who lacks a sense of proportion. Secretly a large offensive nuclear missile force within four minutes striking distance of Washington is significantly different from placing a puny defensive system that couldn't harm Russia if they tried, given that the "warheads" are kinetic.

More than that, why does the base argument on this one always seem to fall back on the "America is < Awesome"? It has nothing to do with the discussion, but it seems to be the only thing anyone brings up.

I think rather differently.
I think the US would throw a fit, threaten to blockade/invade Mexico, and generally whine about Russia mucking about with its source of cheap labour.

Yes, the US would do the same fake-hissy fit as the Russians are now.



So, youre saying the end justifies the means? Pissing off the guys with 10,000 nukes to keep us safe from the guys that might, at some point in the future, gain access to missiles with a long enough range to hit something further away than Turkey?
And thats a BIG if as long as Israel is around. You know how they get about the possibility of Arabs with nukes.

Israel is officially leashed, and has been so since that clusterfuck in Lebanon. They will not move, with or without American or Western support, against any of the regional powers.

Further, as I have already indicated, I do not feel that the Russians actually feel antagonized by this. They know full well that this doesn't affect them at all, but they are making a big stink, because they can. It's domestically quite popular, and it gets a lot of support from foreign sympathizers with Russia.


Funny you should say that. We supplied weapons to Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, South Vietnam and Korea, god knows how many South American regimes and rebel groups...none of which are particularly democratic, nor very good international citizens.

In this instance, though, we are dealing with good international citizens.

And at the time we supplied weapons to many Eastern European states, they were hardly better than Iraq. The Czech Republic, even now, is not a very nice place.

It's far nicer than it was under Soviet rule, and it is constantly improving.



Indeed, it is a good arguement. I dont think the people argueing against Russia will bother with it, though.

Because a comprehensive shield is, quite simply, not possible in the foreseeable future. Sure, someday we may make a super-awesome laser technology that can shoot down all of Russia's missiles ten seconds after launch, but that's a long, long, long way out. The costs of building a shield that could even challenge 10% of the Russian strategic missile force would be extreme.

More than that, our policymakers know that doing so would antagonize actually Russia (instead of making them throw a titanic, make believe, hissy fit), because it would actually impact their ability to deliver weapons. There will not, and can not be a comprehensive missile shield, and Russia need not worry about it.

Because a comprehensive shield is, quite simply, not possible in the foreseeable future. Sure, someday we may make a super-awesome laser technology that can shoot down all of Russia's missiles ten seconds after launch, but that's a long, long, long way out. The costs of building a shield that could even challenge 10% of the Russian strategic missile force would be extreme.


Costs, as they have a way of doing, go down when mass production goes up. The current missile shields are useless against Russia, true, but they will serve as a testbed for future designs, make no mistake about that. From there, who knows?


More than that, our policymakers know that doing so would antagonize actually Russia (instead of making them throw a titanic, make believe, hissy fit), because it would actually impact their ability to deliver weapons. There will not, and can not be a comprehensive missile shield, and Russia need not worry about it.

And what makes you think they really wouldn't try something like that anyway? History has been peppered with leaders who all thought they could take on the world, did a good job of it, and died anyway when they overreached or grew lax, their empires crumbling to dust.

Why should America be an exception?

Costs, as they have a way of doing, go down when mass production goes up. The current missile shields are useless against Russia, true, but they will serve as a testbed for future designs, make no mistake about that. From there, who knows?

Given the number of nuclear missiles, to have a truly effective, comprehensive missile shield you would need many times the number of interceptors than potential inbound targets to be effective as a true "Insurmountable First Strike Incentive".


And what makes you think they really wouldn't try something like that anyway? History has been peppered with leaders who all thought they could take on the world, did a good job of it, and died anyway when they overreached or grew lax, their empires crumbling to dust.

Why should America be an exception?

Look at the American financial situation, in both the immediate and the long term. A project such as this would cost at least as much as the entire nuclear armament program since its foundation. Quite simply, we cannot afford it, and the attendant arms race.

Quite simply, we cannot afford it
We can't afford the Iraq War either, but that didn't stop us.

Yes, the US would do the same fake-hissy fit as the Russians are now.
Good to know we agree on something.
Politics FTW!

Israel is officially leashed, and has been so since that clusterfuck in Lebanon. They will not move, with or without American or Western support, against any of the regional powers.
You think that'll stop them from turning any attempt at a nuclear reactor/weapon into dust if they think its any possible threat to them?
The Israeli government is worried more about its own long term survival than what the US thinks of it.

Further, as I have already indicated, I do not feel that the Russians actually feel antagonized by this. They know full well that this doesn't affect them at all, but they are making a big stink, because they can. It's domestically quite popular, and it gets a lot of support from foreign sympathizers with Russia.
It affects them quite a bit. Its a blow to their reputation (if only in their own eyes), and an attack on their regional power. We're in what they view as THEIR sphere of influence, mucking about with THEIR former puppets.

In this instance, though, we are dealing with good international citizens.
Ukraine is not a good internatioanl citzen.

It's far nicer than it was under Soviet rule, and it is constantly improving.
Oh, yes, they've traded KGB thugs for the regular kind of thugs. Good times.
Sort of like Iraq, ne?

Because a comprehensive shield is, quite simply, not possible in the foreseeable future. Sure, someday we may make a super-awesome laser technology that can shoot down all of Russia's missiles ten seconds after launch, but that's a long, long, long way out. The costs of building a shield that could even challenge 10% of the Russian strategic missile force would be extreme.
And, handily enough, come that day, we would have bases right next to Russia in which to station our uber-awesome doom lasers.

More than that, our policymakers know that doing so would antagonize actually Russia (instead of making them throw a titanic, make believe, hissy fit), because it would actually impact their ability to deliver weapons. There will not, and can not be a comprehensive missile shield, and Russia need not worry about it.

A hissy fit thrown by a nation with 10,000 nuclear weapons is never a minor thing. And consider Russias policy of 'limited nuclear warfare', I dont want them declaring war on ANYBODY.

The US shouldn't leave their weapons in any other country. It antagonizes other regions and countries of the world. It just seems like they are getting ready for another war. When you look at the spending practices of the US government on social issues you realize that the last thing they need to do is spend millions moving and guarding missile sites in other countries. Starting a war doesn't seem to have fixed the economy the first time around and I doubt it will work a second time.

just my humble opinion

Har... at first I was like o.O?
But yes, ...kovo - nokvok, I see where it comes from.

p.s. (at least I haven't been called novok yet, which happens in 'every' forum, and isn't a type either).

I don't see why it hasn't happened yet...

:D