NationStates Jolt Archive

WARSAW, Poland - A top Russian general said Friday that Poland's agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposed the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported.

The statement by Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn was the strongest threat that Russia issued against the plans to put missile defense elements in former Soviet satellite nations.

Poland and the United States on Thursday signed a deal for Poland to accept a missile interceptor base as part of a system the United States said was aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations. Moscow, however, felt it was aimed at Russia's missile force.

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

He added, in clear reference to the agreement, that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them." Nogovitsyn that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems, he said, according to Interfax.

At a news conference earlier Friday, Nogovitsyn had reiterated Russia's frequently stated warning that placing missile-defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic would bring an unspecified military response. But his subsequent reported statement substantially stepped up a war of words.

Poland: Russia can inspect
Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski was quoted Friday by the Polish news agency PAP as saying that Poland was open to Russian inspections because it wanted to give Moscow "tangible proof" that the planned base was not directed against Russia.

U.S. officials have said the timing of the deal was not meant to antagonize Russian leaders at a time when relations already are strained over the recent fighting between Russia and Georgia over the separatist Georgian region of South Ossetia.

Russian forces went deep into Georgia in the fighting, raising wide concerns that Russia could be seeking to occupy parts of its small, pro-U.S. neighbor, which has vigorously lobbied to join NATO, or even to force its government to collapse.

"I think the Russian behavior over the last several days is generally concerning not only to the United States but to all of our European allies," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, when asked about Russian threats against Poland as a result of the missile defense agreement.

He also suggested that earlier U.S. offers for broad cooperation with Moscow on the missile defense program may be reevaluated considering the latest developments.

Patriot missiles part of deal
Under the agreement that Warsaw and Washington reached Thursday, Poland would accept an American missile interceptor base.

Washington said the planned system, which was not yet operational, was needed to protect the U.S. and Europe from possible attacks by missile-armed "rogue states" like Iran.

In an interview on Poland's news channel TVN24, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the United States agreed to help augment Poland's defenses with Patriot missiles in exchange for placing 10 missile defense interceptors in the Eastern European country.

He said the deal also includes a "mutual commitment" between the two nations to come to each other's assistance "in case of trouble."

That clause appeared to be a direct reference to Russia.

Poland has all along been guided by fears of a newly resurgent Russia, an anxiety that has intensified with Russia's offensive in Georgia. In past days, Polish leaders said that fighting justified Poland's demands that it get additional security guarantees from Washington in exchange for allowing the anti-missile base on its soil.

"Simply the existence of this installation increases Poland's security," Polish President Lech Kaczynski said Friday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26203430

So, the Russian bear seems to have awaken again, and is now threatening military action against Poland should missiles be placed there. Dang, I thought the Cold War was over. I guess not. So, with Russia already attacking one former soviet republic, and US ally, and now threatening another one, what type of actions should the US take? Or rather, what type of dumb ass actions do you think the US will make over this.

If Russia presses the button so will the US, France and the UK. Russia will cease to exist as a country and so will most of the Northern Hemisphere.

Now, do the Russians want to do that?

I reckon the general who it was probably fresh of a bottle of Vodka or ten anyway. Putin wouldn't let him do it.

Besides, Russian policy is of "limited nuclear" exchange not a massive attack all at once. A warning shot if you will.

If Russia presses the button so will the US, France and the UK.
I think you're misunderstanding the article... Russia says that if Poland installs an ABM system, it (this ABM base) joins the list of targets to be attacked if things go nuclear. Together with targets in US and UK.

They're not threatening an attack.

I'd say the words "Poland has just increased it's risk of a strike-100%" is rather threatening.

well now just WHO opened up the cold war again the country that put missles in poland or the country that warned that it is a bad idea?

Tell me, what right does Russia have to threaten another nation who is engaged in certain international actions that do not have anything to do with Russia? Russia needs to learn that her ex colonies in Eastern Europe are free and independent countries now. They can do whatever they damn well please.

I wonder if the Russians are actually scared?

Which is why they are bullying other nations. Makes some sense. Only someone paranoid could be scared of a missile DEFENCE system.

Why do everyone pick on Poland?

LEAVE POLAND ALONE, LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!

Russia is just posturing in this case, they won't actually do anything except change the targets of some of their missiles. Even then it's more of a symbolic gesture.

I think Russia is genuinely concerned about the system because it can't shake the cold war mentality and it sees the US "meddling" in what Russia perceives as its sphere of influence. I'm not quite sure why but then again an equally significant question is why does the US need missile defence in the first place? From what I can see it's an expensive relic of cold war politics rather than a genuinely useful defence system.

Why do everyone pick on Poland?

LEAVE POLAND ALONE, LEAVE IT ALONE!!!!

Picking on Poland is a right of passage for any great superpower. I wonder how the Chinese will do it a few decades from now...

Picking on Poland is a right of passage for any great superpower. I wonder how the Chinese will do it a few decades from now...
Most superpowers forget it. That's why Poland is still out there.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26203430

So, the Russian bear seems to have awaken again, and is now threatening military action against Poland should missiles be placed there. Dang, I thought the Cold War was over. I guess not. So, with Russia already attacking one former soviet republic, and US ally, and now threatening another one, what type of actions should the US take? Or rather, what type of dumb ass actions do you think the US will make over this.

Yup....Bush has sparked WWIII.... Lets all become survivalists.

Russia is just posturing in this case, they won't actually do anything except change the targets of some of their missiles. Even then it's more of a symbolic gesture.


I hope your right.

I have a plan to counter Russia. If Russia invades Poland:
1. We disable the brakes on all German tanks.
2. We flip their "invade everyone" switch to ON.

Tell me, what right does Russia have to threaten another nation who is engaged in certain international actions that do not have anything to do with Russia? Russia needs to learn that her ex colonies in Eastern Europe are free and independent countries now. They can do whatever they damn well please.

Russia objects to a weapons platform being erected just outside their borders, by the very power that has been their historical nemesis for the last... well, more than half a century, at least.

Think back to the Cuba Crisis. See if you can see any parallels.

I have a plan to counter Russia. If Russia invades Poland:
1. We disable the brakes on all German tanks.
2. We flip their "invade everyone" switch to ON.
1945, replay!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26203430

So, the Russian bear seems to have awaken again, and is now threatening military action against Poland should missiles be placed there. Dang, I thought the Cold War was over. I guess not. So, with Russia already attacking one former soviet republic, and US ally, and now threatening another one, what type of actions should the US take? Or rather, what type of dumb ass actions do you think the US will make over this.

The real problem is - Russia and the US have Poland over a barrel, and - whichever way they turn, the other guy is gonna fuck them.

Most likely situation - the US will press ahead, Poland will go along with it for the cash and/or promises of security - whilst at the same time trying desperately to placate Russia.

Russia probably won't invade or bomb Poland over it - although, we'd sanction that kind of action if Russia was one of our 'special friends' (like Israel). But they won't be happy about it, and the longterm ramifications are what we should be worrying about - deeper nationalism, more authoritarian government, greater militarism.

It's exactly this kind of brinkmanship that will probably mean Russia WILL start reclaiming territories at some time in the near-to-mid future.

30 years down the line, we may be looking back at this as the first move in a game that created a Sino-Russian Bloc.

This is disturbing to say the least. The last thing the U.S. needs is another war. We need to be paying off some of our debts, not taking on more. And if Russia launches an attack on Poland, we will probably wind up involved sooner or later.

This is disturbing to say the least. The last thing the U.S. needs is another war. We need to be paying off some of our debts, not taking on more. And if Russia launches an attack on Poland, we will probably wind up involved sooner or later.

If we learned anything from history, we learned that Rome survived long after it had died, by refusing to admit it, and by going on a zombie rampage across the civilised world - eating the brains of anything that stayed still long enough, until it turned to dust, explosively, when a well aimed axe lopped off it's decaying head.

Metaphorically.

It's unfortunate, but these huge debts we're incurring won't get paid. They'll either be written off, or they'll fuel rapacious expansionism.

Tell me, what right does Russia have to threaten another nation who is engaged in certain international actions that do not have anything to do with Russia? Russia needs to learn that her ex colonies in Eastern Europe are free and independent countries now. They can do whatever they damn well please.

You mean like Cuba? Pfft, rights are what people with the most firepower say they are.

There is a difference between ICBM's & Patriot missiles you know........

Poland is part of NATO and the EU. I doubt Russia will attack/invade Poland, unless their true intention is to draw NATO and the EU into a war.

You mean like Cuba? Pfft, rights are what people with the most firepower say they are.
Yeah, it reminds me of the recent debate in the nearby thread.

"People of Ossetia deserve self-determination!"
"No, they don't - they don't have the strength to take independence on their own!"
"But what if a superpower helps them?"
"But the superpower doesn't have the right!"

This is not just naive, but also very close-minded. Just like self-proclaimed nations don't have the same rights under international law and UN discretion as old established ones, so superpowers aren't limited to the same rights and don't have to follow as many rules as regular countries.

They're the same to regular nations as what regular nations are to unrecognized ones. Just three levels of rights and abilities.

Unless Putin of Russia is ready to start World War III its just tough talk to scare poland and other nations. If Russia starts World War III at any given time against the west. It wont matter if Poland or other nations have missile defense elements in thier nations or not. Russia would attack those European nations one way or another.

Think back to the Cuba Crisis. See if you can see any parallels.

Hmm, well let's see.

Anti-missile defense system to be used against potential nations from Europe/Asia/Middle East should they become hostile and shoot missiles our way....

OR

A nation hostile to you installing nuclear missiles aimed at you 90 miles from your coast.


Oh yes, practically identical.

Get fucking real.:rolleyes:

Unless Putin of Russia is ready to start World War III its just tough talk to scare poland and other nations.

Yeah, this isn't actually about Poland. The smart monkeys are keeping an eye on the Ukraine right now.

This is basically how the conversation went down in Russia:


Medvedev: Ah yes, Poland! Didn't we used to oppress them?

Putin: Indeed, and now they seem to be trying to carry on actions as an independent and free country! The nerve of these people!

Medvedev: Maybe we should nuke them?

Putin: Hey, why not! Poland is one of our satellite republics, right?

And the Soviet Union starts WW3 years after it disbands.

And the Soviet Union starts WW3 years after I foolishly thought it was disbanded.

fixed.

The real problem is - Russia and the US have Poland over a barrel, and - whichever way they turn, the other guy is gonna fuck them.

Most likely situation - the US will press ahead, Poland will go along with it for the cash and/or promises of security - whilst at the same time trying desperately to placate Russia.

Russia probably won't invade or bomb Poland over it - although, we'd sanction that kind of action if Russia was one of our 'special friends' (like Israel). But they won't be happy about it, and the longterm ramifications are what we should be worrying about - deeper nationalism, more authoritarian government, greater militarism.

It's exactly this kind of brinkmanship that will probably mean Russia WILL start reclaiming territories at some time in the near-to-mid future.

30 years down the line, we may be looking back at this as the first move in a game that created a Sino-Russian Bloc.

Why would Russia and China go together on this? Because all formerly Communist nations will inevitably join together against America?:rolleyes: That didn't happen during the Cold War, when they were both Communist. Its probably at least as likely, given Bush's retarded economic and foreign policies, that the future will see a race for supremacy between China and Russia, with an increasingly irrelevant US marginalized on the side lines.

Russia best think twice before attacking Poland.

Or they'll get flattened...along with many other people...

Russia's being a bully again... trying to twist the arms of nations in order to gain "influence". There is Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Ukraine, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Poland.... *list goes on*

Well you know as they say, there are something in bullies that lead them to bully others....

There is a difference between ICBM's & Patriot missiles you know........

Fat lot of difference it would have made had there been ICBMs in Cuba, Vladivostok or in the Atlantic inside a boomer.

A nation hostile to you installing nuclear missiles aimed at you 90 miles from your coast.


You mean like installing nuclear missiles aimed at Moscow just outside Soviet borders in Turkey?

Hmm, well let's see.

Anti-missile defense system to be used against potential nations from Europe/Asia/Middle East should they become hostile and shoot missiles our way....

OR

A nation hostile to you installing nuclear missiles aimed at you 90 miles from your coast.


Oh yes, practically identical.

Get fucking real.:rolleyes:

Missiles just outside your borders... missiles just outside your borders.

Ah, I see. Yep - totally different.

Think back to the Cuba Crisis. See if you can see any parallels.

The US forced them to back down that time and we'll do it again? Russia's nowhere near the power it was in the 1960's; other than a bunch of raw materials, they have nothing with which to really pose a threat to the rest of the world. Their technology and industrial base are utterly backward and decrepit compared to the US and its allies.

Well, as I see it, it's clear that the Russian Federation wouldn't start a war with EU by striking Poland...what would be their interest ?

Without the European market buying Russian oil and gaz, this country will loose half of it's incomes.
Plus, even without US support, they have no chance to beat us on a conventional war, neither in a nuclear one ( that no one would win either )

I don't think Putin and his boys are stupid warmongers who would spark the fire of nuclear war under such omens.

About Russia and China getting together...

Well, just one question, they haven't done this when they were both communists, now that neither of them is, why would they ?
And I would add, why would China agree ?

Do they need anything from Russia, except their oil supplies ?

China is also eager to get the Vladivostock zone back into it's empire...

The superpowers of this century are China, USA, and certainly EU if we can really do something together.
India and Russia are on the challenger line.

By the way, a multipolar world is far more interesting than a world led by a dangerous hyperpower who doesn't know hom to use it's own strength for good.

i really hope we never join the NATO.

i really hope we never join the NATO.

Joining to Collective Security Treaty Organization is always an option too. :rolleyes:

Joining to Collective Security Treaty Organization is always an option too. :rolleyes:

you see,in the Cold War we practised neutrality and kept away from any of the great power decicions.all of our defense plans are based on being able to defend ourselves without outside help.that's why we still have conscription.but i don't hate the NATO but as for the topic this is from Defcon,a computer game about nuclear war.''everybody loses.but maybe just maybe you can lose the least''

Metaphorically.

It's unfortunate, but these huge debts we're incurring won't get paid. They'll either be written off, or they'll fuel rapacious expansionism.

Its very unlikely that these debts won't be paid. Every world's currency is backed up by dollar and all stock markets and economies are backed up by dollars. Dollar has always been the major oil currency (regardless a recent increase on euro-barrel). If these debts would be "written off" this would crash all economies around the world including USA. It would be like The Great Depression on overdose of steroids.

Believe me, the last thing you want is USA to write off their debts - so do they (USA). USA is obligated to pay these debts and they literally have NO CHOICE. They either do it or everybody is toasted.

Missiles just outside your borders... missiles just outside your borders.

Ah, I see. Yep - totally different.
Actually, it is quite different. For one, Poland isn't just outside Russia's borders--there is at least one country in between them and Russia.(Except for the Kaliningrad Oblast, of course.) For two, not all missiles are identical. These are missiles designed as interceptors for other missiles, and given the way missiles work, they're barely much more than a sophisticated guidance system and a rocket engine. You don't really need anymore than that to intercept a missile.

Cruise missiles would be more of a threat than these are.

Plus, these are placed for defense against possible Iranian missiles; the number is far too few to even make a dent in Russia's ICBM capability.

Really, they're not a threat.

i really hope we never join the NATO.
Why? You've stated in other threads that Finland feels rather threatened by Russia. You would probably do well to join NATO for the extra security it provides.

you see,in the Cold War we practised neutrality and kept away from any of the great power decicions.all of our defense plans are based on being able to defend ourselves without outside help.that's why we still have conscription.but i don't hate the NATO but as for the topic this is from Defcon,a computer game about nuclear war.''everybody loses.but maybe just maybe you can lose the least''

I know, but people of Finland have for a long time "hated and feared" the NATO for no real reason. This is quite odd since Finland is in reality participating to virtually all NATO activities, but it remains outside of the organisation itself. If they fully co-operate with it why they do not seek membership and get all the benefits with it? At the moment Finland only give and get nothing for itself.

The sad fact is that Russia respect only force, the only reason what saved Estonia from Russian "help" to Russians in Estonia during The Bronze Soldier debate was the fact that Estonia is member of NATO. Look at Georgia, Russia did not hesitate even a second to retaliate with full force.

Why? You've stated in other threads that Finland feels rather threatened by Russia. You would probably do well to join NATO for the extra security it provides.

yeah,but if we are in the NATO when a nuclear war erupts that security would be wasted,yes we had talks about the possibility (BTW in the finnish version of ''Have I got news for you'' one of the team captains said ''if the russians attack we can just yell 'NATO-option,NATO-option!' and then the russians run!'.)of joining the NATO,but most are still against it.

NATO is an attempt by the United States to make itself an empire. It's almost like the Delian/Athenian League before the Peloponnesian War. A bunch of "allied states" dominated by one large "superpower" state that thinks its all cool and threatens random states for their land/resources. The modern NATO is almost like a masked Delian League, only it expands much more slowly through a mixture of diplomacy and war. Don't be surprised if Iraq eventually joins NATO; NATO would get cheap oil from Iraq. What's odd is that NATO doesn't even just encompass the North Atlantic.

The Russian Bear is like Sparta. It just focuses on its breakaway neighbours, and then NATO/Delian League rears its ugly head. The Bear just ignores NATO, and then NATO attacks/protests/do whatever. The Bear continues to ignore NATO. Nothing happens or a nuclear war breaks out in which Russia wins or the world is destroyed. NATO is weakened. Bah. Ramble. Rant.

The Russian Bear is like Sparta. It just focuses on its breakaway neighbours, and then NATO/Delian League rears its ugly head. The Bear just ignores NATO, and then NATO attacks/protests/do whatever. The Bear continues to ignore NATO. Nothing happens or a nuclear war breaks out in which Russia wins or the world is destroyed. NATO is weakened. Bah. Ramble. Rant.

Thats not quite true, the Russian's aren't focused on its breakaway neighbours, its simple using them to have a go at NATO. It's trying to use the neighbours to show to everyone they that aren't to be messed with. Both NATO and Russia worry about each other similar amounts, it's just Russia are able to show off their power through military action, where as NATO can't.

NATO is an attempt by the United States to make itself an empire. It's almost like the Delian/Athenian League before the Peloponnesian War. A bunch of "allied states" dominated by one large "superpower" state that thinks its all cool and threatens random states for their land/resources. The modern NATO is almost like a masked Delian League, only it expands much more slowly through a mixture of diplomacy and war. Don't be surprised if Iraq eventually joins NATO; NATO would get cheap oil from Iraq. What's odd is that NATO doesn't even just encompass the North Atlantic.

The Russian Bear is like Sparta. It just focuses on its breakaway neighbours, and then NATO/Delian League rears its ugly head. The Bear just ignores NATO, and then NATO attacks/protests/do whatever. The Bear continues to ignore NATO. Nothing happens or a nuclear war breaks out in which Russia wins or the world is destroyed. NATO is weakened. Bah. Ramble. Rant.


If this bear ignore NATO, why every time a country want to join it, Russia claim it's threatened and blablabla ?

NATO is not a political entity, only a military one...just look at the relation of France with OTAN :]
If you seek a Western league, look for EU.
Wich lands are getting submissed by NATO, by the way ?

Irak is an US war.
Kosovo ? Yeah, what a land of natural ressources and industrial potential ! A country we have to build on every aspect, with 70% unemployments...don't trust so much the Pravda, you know, sometimes, it's only saying absolut bullshit, muck like Fox News.

Thus, the Spartan won against Athens due to the Persian gold who was sent to them...in your case, who would be the Persians ? China ?
More, the Spartan victory only pave the way to the rise of powers who beat them: The Beotian league, the Macedonians...what a success ! :]

yeah,but if we are in the NATO when a nuclear war erupts that security would be wasted,yes we had talks about the possibility (BTW in the finnish version of ''Have I got news for you'' one of the team captains said ''if the russians attack we can just yell 'NATO-option,NATO-option!' and then the russians run!'.)of joining the NATO,but most are still against it.

A nuclear war is very unlikely, and therefore it really wouldn't matter what alliance you're a part of; some of your cities will disappear in the initial blasts and whatever survivors you've got will starve to death in the ensuing chaos.

The idea behind NATO as it stands now is security against a foreign aggressor. Given that Russia has now demonstrated it is willing to use military force against another power, I personally think it would be wise for Finland to join NATO, because by joining NATO you'd guarantee you'd never be attacked.

But that's just my opinion. I'm not exactly all that well acquainted with Finnish politics or military status, so take my opinion with the requisite grain of salt.


Stoklomolvi: Bull malarky. NATO was initially created to counter the Soviet Union during the beginnings of the Cold War, and at the time only involved Western European nations, most all of which were on the Atlantic or very close to it.

The NATO that exists today is simply a military alliance for the sake of security and does not require that all of its members participate in a war against other powers; merely that they all agree to defend each other in case war is declared against one of the NATO partners.

It's not specifically to defend against Russia per se so much as it is any foreign aggressor.

am I the only one who sees the Russian mentality in this?

Russia wants buffer states with which to protect itself, its always had and I should think its rather obvious why (in perspective its like North Korea* placing military installation in Canada)

*chosen to bring the point that the US has never suffered a war for survival on its own territory

I have a plan to counter Russia. If Russia invades Poland:
1. We disable the brakes on all German tanks.
2. We flip their "invade everyone" switch to ON.

I'd amend 2 to read "Invade (one front only option).

3. Go to "Love Parade". Disable the "love" section. Run.

am I the only one who sees the Russian mentality in this?

Russia wants buffer states with which to protect itself, its always had and I should think its rather obvious why (in perspective its like North Korea* placing military installation in Canada)

*chosen to bring the point that the US has never suffered a war for survival on its own territory

The thing is that it doesn't NEED them in this day and age, especially not against NATO. NATO is not an Anti-Russia alliance. It's an alliance for the security of its member states against any sort of foreign aggressor. It's not an aggressive alliance in and of itself, and certainly not against Russia.

I understand why Russia feels it needs buffer states, but it really doesn't. Not anymore. Russia needs to join the rest of us in the twenty-first century.

Tell me, what right does Russia have to threaten another nation who is engaged in certain international actions that do not have anything to do with Russia? Russia needs to learn that her ex colonies in Eastern Europe are free and independent countries now. They can do whatever they damn well please.

They've none. However if you'll notice events of the last 10 years alone, theres one set of rules for some and another for the little people.


Anti-missile defense system to be used against potential nations from Europe/Asia/Middle East should they become hostile and shoot missiles our way....
OR
A nation hostile to you installing nuclear missiles aimed at you 90 miles from your coast.

Oh yes, practically identical..

By threatening Russias ability to strike back they're taken as far more than a self defence measure. If the chinese whacked something similar in Latin America there'd be similar threats from the US. A pox on both your houses I say.

I understand why Russia feels it needs buffer states, but it really doesn't. Not anymore. Russia needs to join the rest of us in the twenty-first century.

yes because there is plenty of evidence from a Russian POV that they can now give up the mentality that has served them well for centuries!

oh wait this is the same NATO that just created Kosovo...

yes because there is plenty of evidence from a Russian POV that they can now give up the mentality that has served them well for centuries!

oh wait this is the same NATO that just created Kosovo...

I fail to see what "creating Kosovo" has to do with threatening Russian sovereignty.

well now just WHO opened up the cold war again the country that put missles in poland or the country that warned that it is a bad idea?

Yes Russia has every right to say to another country if you do this then we will place you on our list of targets. :rolleyes:

Yup....Bush has sparked WWIII.... Lets all become survivalists.

:rolleyes:

Yes it isn't the people who actually attacked them (Yes I know nothing has happened yet) but it is the people who installed defence capabilities.

It's all very well to hate Bush but really do we need to blame him for everything that other people do.

While I don't think we need to spring clean the nuclear bomb shelters just yet, it may be some cause to concern after all Russia has never liked this plan as it is a more effective way to stop any missiles coming into Europe and America, and has not Putin cut off gas supplies before to former Soviet Bloc countries because they have aligned themselves with the US? I am asking I know he threatened them but I do not remember hearing if he did do it.

I understand why Russia feels it needs buffer states, but it really doesn't. Not anymore. Russia needs to join the rest of us in the twenty-first century.
Russia is just a world leader wannabe. Always has been.
Some time before the Mongol invasion, they had a few centuries at being the world's most powerful nation, raiding and extorting the Europe, known there as Vikings - Vikings and Rus were the same nation until much later - but with a well-developed urban civilization [BTW, socially the Viking civilization was much more advanced in most aspects than ours today]. So the memory of these times is stuck hard in their butts, creating a belief they'll never be in their place unless they get on the top, which every Dear Leader exploits to bring himself to power and make the country work at "world influence" instead of actually improving the economy.

These days, they're the wannabe US, pretty much following the same routes in international relations - Cuba, Poland; Afghanistan, Afghanistan; Kosovo, Ossetia; et cetera. And, lacking an all-ocean border, they want a set of buffer countries.
What kinda worries me, BTW, is the risk of US becoming just like that, should it lose its current World's Capital status.



has not Putin cut off gas supplies before to former Soviet Bloc countries because they have aligned themselves with the US? I am asking I know he threatened them but I do not remember hearing if he did do it.
Well, it would cut into their profits. If I'm not missing something, the situation is this: Soviet Bloc used to get gas and oil at discount prices (same as inside Russia), even after the collapse. When they aligned themselves with NATO, Putin raised prices for them to the same as for Western Europe, over which there has been a lot of discontent (since the difference is like 3-fold). With Ukraine they ended up still keeping discount price, in exchange for another favor, IIRC extending the rent of the Sevastopol naval base.

I have a plan to counter Russia. If Russia invades Poland:
1. We disable the brakes on all German tanks.
2. We flip their "invade everyone" switch to ON.

Knowing the Germans, they'll invade France and Britain first this time :eek:

If I was the Ukrainian leader, I'd be very worried, since the Ukraine has a large russian population in the east of the country.....
And in any case how did russia move so many tanks/troops into georgia so fast ........ when it takes us sort 2-3 weeks to mobile that many troops.

Anyways for all you who never experienced the cold war, get ready to feel frightened, then not so frightened.. then dont care until some idiot sets off the warning sirens by accident, at which point you think you have about 7 minutes life left to do all the things you wanted to

If I was the Ukrainian leader, I'd be very worried, since the Ukraine has a large russian population in the east of the country....
Many former Soviet satellite nations have a substantial Russian minority - the result of Soviet deportations and repression/decimation of the native population and the resettlement of ethnic Russians ("Russification"). That happened in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine (Holodomor?), Moldova, etc.

Many former Soviet satellite nations have a substantial Russian minority - the result of Soviet deportations and repression/decimation of the native population and the resettlement of ethnic Russians ("Russification"). That happened in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine (Holodomor?), Moldova, etc.

it also happened in Finland,during the 1800s and early 1900s.they are known in Finland as ''Sortokaudet''(finnish for times of oppression)the First Sortokausi began in 1899 and ended in 1904 because of the assasination of Nikolai Bobrikov by Eugen Schauman who killed himself.the Second Sortokausi began in 1908 and ended naturally because of the independence of Finland.here's the wiki article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification_of_Finland

--snip--
I think Finland had been repeatedly coerced/forced/brainwashed to maintain neutrality... ostensibly to maintain "balance" when in fact the Soviets are busy turning this democracy into its satellite, or at least not a part of the anti-Soviet bloc. Finnish neutrality is so unlike Swiss or even Swedish neutrality. The Soviets were able to twist Finland's arm into not joining even the Nordic Council. The Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 effectively gave leverage to the Soviets in internal Finnish affairs. Heck, even Yugoslavia (the only other eastern European country to escape Soviet domination) was arguably more independent from the Soviet Union than Finland, having the nerve to break out from Soviet satelliteship and pursue an independent course.

I fail to see what "creating Kosovo" has to do with threatening Russian sovereignty.

Serbian = Russian more or less

or I could point out that NATO has not pulled its forces back since the end of the cold war like Russia has and has instead proceeded to do the opposite

it takes us sort 2-3 weeks to mobile that many troops.

its a conflict zone on Russia's border...during the modern age

Well, it would cut into their profits. If I'm not missing something, the situation is this: Soviet Bloc used to get gas and oil at discount prices (same as inside Russia), even after the collapse. When they aligned themselves with NATO, Putin raised prices for them to the same as for Western Europe, over which there has been a lot of discontent (since the difference is like 3-fold). With Ukraine they ended up still keeping discount price, in exchange for another favor, IIRC extending the rent of the Sevastopol naval base.

Yes that sounds a bit more correct.

I think Finland had been repeatedly coerced/forced/brainwashed to maintain neutrality... ostensibly to maintain "balance" when in fact the Soviets are busy turning this democracy into its satellite, or at least not a part of the anti-Soviet bloc. Finnish neutrality is so unlike Swiss or even Swedish neutrality. The Soviets were able to twist Finland's arm into not joining even the Nordic Council. The Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 effectively gave leverage to the Soviets in internal Finnish affairs. Heck, even Yugoslavia (the only other eastern European country to escape Soviet domination) was arguably more independent from the Soviet Union than Finland, having the nerve to break out from Soviet satelliteship and pursue an independent course.

the russification happened when we were under russian rule.

the russification happened when we were under russian rule.
Yeah, and while Cold War Soviet intervention in Finland will NOT count as "Russification", it was an effort on the part of Russia to maintain hegemony over the buffer states, which are now slipping out of its grasp.

Wrong quote, perhaps, but I'd like to show that Finland was not that neutral as it liked to think it was.

Wrong quote, perhaps, but I'd like to show that Finland was not that neutral as it liked to think it was.
Basically, the difference between Swiss neutrality and Finnish neutrality is that Switzerland isn't fucked by anyone, and Finland is fucked by both.

Basically, the difference between Swiss neutrality and Finnish neutrality is that Switzerland isn't fucked by anyone, and Finland is fucked by both.

It is not that simple. Finland could not join a NATO and did not want to join a Warsaw Pact. The only possible choice was to try to be in the grey zone between east and west. It is true that Finno-Soviet Treaty of 1948 and Paris Peace Treaty were seriously limiting what kind decisions Finland could do without violating those treaties. However the Soviet Union had stable security interests along its north-western frontier, and these interests were not in conflict with Finland’s position.

Recent studies on the security policy of Sweden during the Cold War have revealed, on the basis of American documents, that Sweden, despite its policy of neutrality, had some kind of unofficial and unstated security guarantee from the United States. Although this was never even tacitly brought to the attention of the Swedish government, it was widely assumed that in the event of war Sweden could get assistance from the West. In other words, Sweden could be regarded as part of the ‘grey zone’ of United States security policy.

Call to Power's got it right. The Russian goal ever since Muscovy kicked the Mongols out and forcibly united its neighbors has been to put as much space between the Russian heartland and everywhere else. Its amazing what a serious trauma can do to a bunch of honest traders. Who happen to be descended from vikings ;)
Seriously, though, their entire military was constructed around the idea.
Even the DESIGN OF THEIR TANKS is built to work around that goal.
They want to put territory between themselves, Western Europe, India, China and every other military threat. And when they cant put territory between themselves and a threat, they'll try to put distractions between themselves and a threat. Like Cuba.

Yeah, and while Cold War Soviet intervention in Finland will NOT count as "Russification", it was an effort on the part of Russia to maintain hegemony over the buffer states, which are now slipping out of its grasp.

Wrong quote, perhaps, but I'd like to show that Finland was not that neutral as it liked to think it was.

He MIGHT be referring to the Russian Empire period, when the one of the Tsars (cant remember who) attempted to make Russian the official language used in schools, government, church, and so forth, and essentially tried to turn the Finns into Russians.
The Soviets tried something similar later, I think, with about the same result, namely that the Finns basically ignored it.

He MIGHT be referring to the Russian Empire period, when the one of the Tsars (cant remember who) attempted to make Russian the official language used in schools, government, church, and so forth, and essentially tried to turn the Finns into Russians.
The Soviets tried something similar later, I think, with about the same result, namely that the Finns basically ignored it.

that's exatly what i'm talking about.i mentioned the finnish independence,we gained independence in 1917.

NATO is not a political entity, only a military one...just look at the relation of France with OTAN :]

I still can't believe that Sarko put France back into the combined structure.

You mean like Cuba? Pfft, rights are what people with the most firepower say they are.

Exept these are explicitly defensive missiles that couldn't even target Russia in any situation. Compare to Cuba, where a few dozen Nuclear tipped missiles were right on our doorstep. I could understand if we were placing nuclear tipped missiles in that area (a la Turkey). These interceptor missiles pose no threat whatsoever to Russia. They just don't want to lose their ex-colonies. This whole situation has nothing to do with Russia at all.

Exept these are explicitly defensive missiles that couldn't even target Russia in any situation. Compare to Cuba, where a few dozen Nuclear tipped missiles were right on our doorstep. I could understand if we were placing nuclear tipped missiles in that area (a la Turkey). These interceptor missiles pose no threat whatsoever to Russia. They just don't want to lose their ex-colonies. This whole situation has nothing to do with Russia at all.

But they MIGHT be, comrade. One can never be too careful with the capitolist-imperialist dogs of the West. They are well known to disguise things like that. Why, once I went to a place called McDonalds where they disguised processed plastic as food!

In all seriousness, its posturing. Its an excuse. Russia is saying, "We're big and tough and the US wont try to stop us 'cause we're just that awesome. All you little former Soviet Republics had better say hello to the new tough guy on the block." And they get to tweak the US' nose at the same time. Two birds, one stone.

Russia says that if Poland installs an ABM system, it (this ABM base) joins the list of targets to be attacked if things go nuclear. Together with targets in US and UK.


Targets JUST in US and UK? I'd say that about all of western Europe is in the lists of the russian ICBMs. Just as all the Eastern bloc was target (for some parts, still is) of the NATO missiles.

Big News: Warsaw back in ICBM crosshairs. First they were marked "USA", now they're marked "Russia". And that's all the difference.

Compare to Cuba, where a few dozen Nuclear tipped missiles were right on our doorstep. I could understand if we were placing nuclear tipped missiles in that area (a la Turkey).

Ehm... do you know why the US removed the nuclear ballistic missiles from Turkey back in the early '60s? You guessed right: it was because the Russians threatened to place missiles in Cuba.

So, it's just like back in the Cold War: two superpowers are playing chess over influence zones, only that today they can't mask it as "capitalism vs communism".

Ehm... do you know why the US removed the nuclear ballistic missiles from Turkey back in the early '60s? You guessed right: it was because the Russians threatened to place missiles in Cuba.

So, it's just like back in the Cold War: two superpowers are playing chess over influence zones, only that today they can't mask it as "capitalism vs communism".

No, they removed them after the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba. It was the agreement. They remove their missiles. Them basing their missiles in Cuba was a direct response to our Jupiter IRBMs in Turkey. And it's completely understandible.

Again, the key difference is the Defensive role of the missiles. By construction, it is physically impossible for the polish based interceptors to A. Attack Russia or B. Attack Russian missiles. The present situation and the Cuban Missile "Crisis" are two completely different situations.

I'd be with the US if their "missile shield" really did obsolete ICBM's. But actually, the point is to obsolete everyone else's ICBM's. Thus vastly multiplying the threat value of the biggest nuclear arsenal in the world ... that of the US.

Russia is quite correct in this instance. Being a forward base of US anti-ballistic missiles makes Poland a legitimate target in a nuclear war ... and the same rule applies as applied thirty years ago. Russia won't nuke anyone except in self-defence. They never could, and can't now, afford to be the aggressor.

Imagine that Russia is attacked by the US, with nuclear weapons (yeah, yeah, but the Russians have to consider this scenario) ... Russia could launch some of their inferior arsenal at the US and find out if the missile shield works. IF IT DOES, they're fucked.

Or they could attack the missile shield directly, ie attack Poland with lower trajectory (ie fast) missiles, and nuclear bombers, and take out the Polish arm of the shield.

Absolutely no question, any country which bases anti-ballistic missiles increases its risk of being a nuclear target. They would be far more at risk in a US/Russia nuclear exchange than any part of the US mainland: taking out the shield would be a 'warning-shot' and if the shield works, a necessary step, in a nuclear exchange.

Imagine that Russia is attacked by the US, with nuclear weapons (yeah, yeah, but the Russians have to consider this scenario) ... Russia could launch some of their inferior arsenal at the US and find out if the missile shield works. IF IT DOES, they're fucked.
Actually, the Russian nuclear arsenal is currently the largest in the world by a wide margin. Russia also has the most reliable delivery systems (SS-18), and is as well the only state which nuclear arsenal has been built with ABM penetration in mind.

Additionally, Russia has 12,000 "inactive" warheads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons) which they'd activate in any crisis, thus bringing the total to over 3 times the US nuclear arsenal (US "inactives" included).

The number of missiles, as well as their sophistication and focus on ABM penetration have only increased under the latest years of Putin's rule.

] Imagine that Russia is attacked by the US, with nuclear weapons (yeah, yeah, but the Russians have to consider this scenario) ... Russia could launch some of their inferior arsenal at the US and find out if the missile shield works. IF IT DOES, they're fucked.

Infferior arsenal? I think not.

Missile sheild not a threat. No matter how much they put up, it can't shot down all our missiles. You talking about thousands. Also some of our missiles have a good chance of not being shot down.

Yes wed be fucked, on the bright side (sorta) so would the west.:D

The number of missiles, as well as their sophistication and focus on ABM penetration have only increased under the latest years of Putin's rule.

Of course, it doesn't really matter. Once a nuclear weapon flies, Russia will be obliterated regardless of how many weapons they possess.

Of course, it doesn't really matter. Once a nuclear weapon flies, Russia will be obliterated regardless of how many weapons they possess.

You would be too. We see missiles comming and fire ours at you.

I think to be honest, the general who said this was being a bit ambitious. Someone lock his drinks cabinet so he doesn't make such stupid statements again.

this would be a good time to remember Defcon's line ''It's Global Thermonuclear War, and nobody wins.
But maybe - just maybe - you can lose the least.''here's the site:http://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/about/video.html.It's the video section,see the trailer.

I think to be honest, the general who said this was being a bit ambitious. Someone lock his drinks cabinet so he doesn't make such stupid statements again.

He works best when hes drunk though...

this would be a good time to remember Defcon's line ''It's Global Thermonuclear War, and nobody wins.
But maybe - just maybe - you can lose the least.''
Cold War estimates have put the immediate and direct population losses from the nuclear exchange at 30% for US and 10% for USSR.
Indirect and delayed losses (radiation, poison, famine, pestilence) estimates are less reliable, but range around 60-70% US and 25-40% USSR respectively.

It goes without mentioning that the economy and the society of both parties would be thrown back a few centuries, probably to about 1350.



The ones losing the least would be the ones not involved and remote.

So the UK would be fucked.

Maybe we could declare ourselves neutral.........

Cold War estimates have put the immediate and direct population losses from the nuclear exchange at 30% for US and 10% for USSR.
Indirect and delayed losses (radiation, poison, famine, pestilence) estimates are less reliable, but range around 60-70% US and 25-40% USSR respectively.

It goes without mentioning that the economy and the society of both parties would be thrown back a few centuries, probably to about 1350.



The ones losing the least would be the ones not involved and remote.

Considering that 7-8 30-40 megaton explosions are enough to set off a nuclear winter, it won't matter how remote anyone is.

But that's neither here nor there, because there isn't going to be a nuclear war. This threat constitutes nothing more or less than a reminder that Russia has vital security interests, and that continually expanding a defense league originally established to contain Soviet Russian aggression (whatever the original charter may say) carries consequences with respect to those vital security interests. And for those of you who insist that of course America's and NATO's actions are peaceful: exactly what proof do the Russians have of that? NATO's actions in the past decade, from the Russian perspective, have been to strip a province from an ally (Kosovo from Serbia), expand into former Warsaw Pact countries, and to back US action in Afghanistan in order to free up troops for a war of aggression in Iraq. Now we have a presidential candidate saying that we ought to consider ourselves fellow members of a small Caucusus-state that just killed Russian aid workers while trying to bring a breakaway province back into the fold, and the other suggesting that we should include said state in NATO. What reliability do our claims to peace really have when viewed as the Russians must view our actions?

I'm surprised I have to tell conservatives this; they were once the people accused of being cold-blooded foreign policy realists.

I will point out though that the analogy between missiles in Poland and missiles in Cuba isn't quite right, as it isn't strong enough to compare with what we're doing with Russia. If Russia were trying to bring Canada into a resurgent Warsaw Pact and finding common rhetorical cause with an Aztlan-backed terrorist group in California, that would be closer.

I am gald that Xenophobialand seems to understand our veiw and hes right.

NATO is more of an Anti-Russia club. Their goal is to see that our country is weakened where ever possible.

Maybe Poland, Ukraine and such could form their own neutral part between NATO & Russia. Instead of the US equipping it, Russia AND NATO would help with equipment to ensure there was no bias.

Won't happen but it might be constructive if it did.

Maybe Poland, Ukraine and such could form their own neutral part between NATO & Russia. Instead of the US equipping it, Russia AND NATO would help with equipment to ensure there was no bias.

Won't happen but it might be constructive if it did.

Yes, you have no idea how much better it would be if NATO would just stop heading east with their membership. What next? All the countires that boarder us, expect China.

Our best bet would have been to invite Russia into NATO back in 1992, but Clinton wasn't having that. I grant that in the long term it may have caused a split in NATO if America and Russia again found themselves on different sides of material interests, but it would have been a damned sight smarter than isolating Russia and incorporating as much of the former Warsaw Pact as we could into NATO to isolate them.

Our best bet would have been to invite Russia into NATO back in 1992, but Clinton wasn't having that. I grant that in the long term it may have caused a split in NATO if America and Russia again found themselves on different sides of material interests, but it would have been a damned sight smarter than isolating Russia and incorporating as much of the former Warsaw Pact as we could into NATO to isolate them.

Well...I don't think our goverment would of joined anyway. I wouldn't want us part of NATO either. The west veiws are just too different from ours. Nor do I want our culture mixed with more western culture. I am sure that the other NATO mebers would just find ways to contrul us in it. Don't forget the lack of trust for both sides with each other.

I think it would be better if the west did not go any further than poland to the east. However, its too late for that already. So I would like to see a new allince pack for us. Mybe Russia and other Asian countries, like China and kazakhstan. To conter NATO.

The US simply weren't prepared for winning the Cold War. The entire economy (which, frankly, won the Cold War) is geared to perpetual competition.

Now they're like a drunk guy, trying to find someone to fight. Like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.

Who DID win the Cold War, anyway?

The US simply weren't prepared for winning the Cold War. The entire economy (which, frankly, won the Cold War) is geared to perpetual competition.

Now they're like a drunk guy, trying to find someone to fight. Like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.

Who DID win the Cold War, anyway?

Define win....

All you need to know is that Mikhail Gorbachev (last Soviet leader) was one of the worst leaders and best in Soviet history.

Exept these are explicitly defensive missiles that couldn't even target Russia in any situation. Compare to Cuba, where a few dozen Nuclear tipped missiles were right on our doorstep. I could understand if we were placing nuclear tipped missiles in that area (a la Turkey). These interceptor missiles pose no threat whatsoever to Russia. They just don't want to lose their ex-colonies. This whole situation has nothing to do with Russia at all.

You're missing Russia's point tbh; this missile defense system will strategically neuter Russia, or any other raising super power, from ever truly gaining any sort of power.

Do you honestly think these interceptors will shoot down American nukes? Of course not; but they'll shoot down everyone else.

That being said, it's unlikely that we'll see a nuclear war, or any sort of WWIII; Wars between modern super powers are always fought in proxi wars in other nations.

You're missing Russia's point tbh; this missile defense system will strategically neuter Russia, or any other raising super power, from ever truly gaining any sort of power.

No it wont, there's only gonna be a few of them, I've heard, not nearly enough to stop Russia.

Actually, the Russian nuclear arsenal is currently the largest in the world by a wide margin. Russia also has the most reliable delivery systems (SS-18), and is as well the only state which nuclear arsenal has been built with ABM penetration in mind.

I've wred a lot of your opinions, and seen how they stand up to criticism.

So I'll take that on faith. You're probably right, but ...

when you say "reliable" you mean "most likely to launch and hit their designated targets" don't you?

NOT including countermeasures ... the trillions of dollars spent by the US in the last three decades, most particularly in space ...

Missile shield may simply be the "face-up" card. US might have the winning hand concealed.

Additionally, Russia has 12,000 "inactive" warheads (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons) which they'd activate in any crisis, thus bringing the total to over 3 times the US nuclear arsenal (US "inactives" included).

The number of missiles, as well as their sophistication and focus on ABM penetration have only increased under the latest years of Putin's rule.

Link for that would be good too.

===========

Infferior arsenal? I think not.

Missile sheild not a threat. No matter how much they put up, it can't shot down all our missiles. You talking about thousands. Also some of our missiles have a good chance of not being shot down.

Yes wed be fucked, on the bright side (sorta) so would the west.:D

Really not funny dude.

There are US bases in MY country. We made no nuclear weapons, we bought no nuclear weapons, we do not accept nuclear weapons being based on our soil. But our alliance with the US means we must accept strategically important facilities of the US.

My country being nuked, or any country in the world being nuked is not "bright side" for me.

Define win....

All you need to know is that Mikhail Gorbachev (last Soviet leader) was one of the worst leaders and best in Soviet history.

Worst in the world, best in Soviet history?

It doesn't matter to me if Gorbachev was a CIA plant, or a good Russian who saw the best way to save Russia. He did the right thing, and if standing down from the Cold War had been Ronald Reagan's idea, I'd say that Ronald Reagan was the best leader of the twentieth century.

Gorbachev did what had to be done. Big man!

when you say "reliable" you mean "most likely to launch and hit their designated targets" don't you?
Well, SS-18 has a 97% success rate in test, the highest of any comparable system. They've refined the missiles very well.
As for hitting, the Soviet missiles are less accurate, but they generally are more protected, both in placement and in flight, so more likely to hit - although not always their targets. But in terms of civilian destruction it's only for the worse.

NOT including countermeasures ... the trillions of dollars spent by the US in the last three decades, most particularly in space ...
Billions, not trillions. The whole nuclear program cost 7 trillions (see detail here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=542151)).
Pretty much the only results of the ABM programs, however, are the PAC-3 and SM-3.
Since even these barely justify the expense, US government is very unlikely to keep some "true ABM" in secrecy, partially because it would be difficult, partially because it would be better for it to show off the ABM system, if only to explain and increase the spending.

Link for that would be good too. It would be hard to find specific figures, as we're talking about the very last years. But as for the general trend:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/russia/2007/russia-070209-rianovosti02.htm



There are US bases in MY country. We made no nuclear weapons, we bought no nuclear weapons, we do not accept nuclear weapons being based on our soil. But our alliance with the US means we must accept strategically important facilities of the US.
My country being nuked, or any country in the world being nuked is not "bright side" for me.
That's the price for NATO membership - mutual defense comes with mutual destruction. Of course US wants to spread its bases among multiple countries, both for the public reasons and to divert some strikes from US.

You're missing Russia's point tbh; this missile defense system will strategically neuter Russia, or any other raising super power, from ever truly gaining any sort of power.

Do you honestly think these interceptors will shoot down American nukes? Of course not; but they'll shoot down everyone else.

That being said, it's unlikely that we'll see a nuclear war, or any sort of WWIII; Wars between modern super powers are always fought in proxi wars in other nations.

Not really, seeing as how the technology to beat our ICBM defense already exists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle). I suppose there's an outside possibility that the Poland interceptors are really there to shoot down the bus vehicles on ascent, which would be worth quite a bit. The problem, however, is that 1) however many we have, it won't be enough to "neuter" the Russian nuclear threat and 2) in the meantime, we destabilize the nuclear detente that currently exists by building missile defense.

The idea behind this goes back to Thucydides's dissection of the causes of the war between Athens and Sparta. His argument was that the real cause of the war was a wall Athens built around the city prior to the war. Prior to this wall going up, both Athens and Sparta remained reasonably assured of destroying one another's city in the event of war, hence neither fought the other. By building the wall, however, Athens removed Sparta's ability to destroy Athens, and by doing so, Sparta became less secure. So they escalated conflict with Athens prior to the wall going up and Athens, with the anticipation of completing the wall, escalated as well, leading to a full-blown war that Athens ultimately lost.

In some sense, a legitemate anti-ballistic missile defense works exactly the same way in international relations as that wall around Athens. There already exists a means to deter Russia from nuking us. We know it works because we've been using it for about 40 years now. It's called second-strike capacity, or the ability to retain enough nuclear firepower even if a full-blown first strike hits us to ensure annihilation of Russia. But if we actually built a credible anti-ballistic missile defense, we would in effect be neutralizing the ability of Russia's second-strike capacity to deter us. This decreases Russia's sense of security, and makes us more adventurous as well (just as Athens became more adventurous prior to the completion of the wall) and by extension more willing to risk an escalation to nuclear conflict. It's important to note that "We wouldn't do that; we're Americans!" may sound great to us, but it doesn't say anything that alleviates Russia's cold hard desire not just for some vague assurance but actual security. The point being that one of the things that actually saving us right now is the fact that the ballistic missile shield is small and largely ineffective. If we ever did try to build a credible anti-ballistic missile shield, we'd likely only be inviting a nuclear holocaust as Russia launched before we could get it online.

Basically, the difference between Swiss neutrality and Finnish neutrality is that Switzerland isn't fucked by anyone, and Finland is fucked by both.

Finlandization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization); "The art of bowing to the East so carefully that it could not be considered mooning the West." - Kari Suomalainen

It's just realpolitik.

Exept these are explicitly defensive missiles that couldn't even target Russia in any situation. Compare to Cuba, where a few dozen Nuclear tipped missiles were right on our doorstep. I could understand if we were placing nuclear tipped missiles in that area (a la Turkey). These interceptor missiles pose no threat whatsoever to Russia. They just don't want to lose their ex-colonies. This whole situation has nothing to do with Russia at all.

Except being near Russia, showing NATO influence along its borders. Today, interceptors, tomorrow, medium range ballistic missiles. Who knows? It's not like the West hasn't attempted to encircle and contain Russia before, and only an idiot lets his country be encircled by a potentially hostile force, MAD or no MAD.

To Russia, I figure they're probably seeing this as NATO encirclement strategies of 1950-1970 round two.

All this noise about making Poland a possible target? It's a message to the West and NATO that they're watching very carefully what NATO is up to, and that they're not going to take any encirclement attempts lying down. Also, it gives them a stronger stance if NATO attempts to ship in the likes of troops, missile bases, as they've done before, or other offensive weapons in the near future.

You won't live long if you just think one step ahead in international politics. You've got to think a great many steps ahead. What your opponents might conceivably do, and what you can do to counter it.

Am i missing something or dont both US and Russia already have little portable islands of uninterceptable nuclear cruise missiles on each others shores making anti missile systems irrelevant? We call them fleets of nuclear submarines.

Am i missing something or dont both US and Russia already have little portable islands of uninterceptable nuclear cruise missiles on each others shores making anti missile systems irrelevant? We call them fleets of nuclear submarines.
Russia's submarine-based arsenal is just 1,500 warheads, only enough to destroy the human civilization on Earth twice. Their total arsenal, however, is 18,000 warheads, enough to do it 25 times.

No, they removed them after the Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba. It was the agreement. They remove their missiles. Them basing their missiles in Cuba was a direct response to our Jupiter IRBMs in Turkey. And it's completely understandible.

There were never any Soviet ICBMs in Cuba. MRBMs, there were four IIRC, under the direct command of the local Soviet commander, but nothing with the reach to hit America. The entire standoff between Kennedy and Khrushchev was to get the Soviet Union to stop work on the bases that were under construction (missiles not yet arrived), in exchange for retraction of missiles in Turkey.

[QUOTE=Xomic;13929322]You're missing Russia's point tbh; this missile defense system will strategically neuter Russia, or any other raising super power, from ever truly gaining any sort of power.
Most Russian missiles would go to the US over the North Pole anyways. And these ABM systems can't shoot down masses of missiles, just a few. Who is the US worried would be launching just a few missiles? Iran!

There were never any Soviet ICBMs in Cuba. MRBMs, there were four IIRC, under the direct command of the local Soviet commander, but nothing with the reach to hit America. The entire standoff between Kennedy and Gorbachev was to get the Soviet Union to stop work on the bases that were under construction (missiles not yet arrived), in exchange for retraction of missiles in Turkey.

Gorbachev wasn't the Soviet leader during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev was.

Gorbachev wasn't the Soviet leader during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Khrushchev was.

Yeah, I knew something was off with my post, but wasn't sure what. Thanks for pointing it out.

Good. That's what Poland deserves for this action. The anti-missiles are designed for Russia and no one else. If they were meant to intercept missiles from Iran or North Korea--neither of which are actual threats to Europe--they wouldn't be near Russia. They'd be in Greece and Turkey.

Perhaps we can divide Poland between us? Some kind of pact that would clearly define our spheres of influence?

There were never any Soviet ICBMs in Cuba. MRBMs, there were four IIRC, under the direct command of the local Soviet commander, but nothing with the reach to hit America. The entire standoff between Kennedy and Khrushchev was to get the Soviet Union to stop work on the bases that were under construction (missiles not yet arrived), in exchange for retraction of missiles in Turkey.

I never said there were ICBMs in Cuba. However, the missiles that did arrive had a range of 2000+Km, more then enough to reach vital American targets. There were missiles in Cuba that were a threat to the US. Just as there were Jupiter IRBMs in

Either way, the two situations are not comparible at all. Nuclear missiles pointed at the US are simply not the same as a dozen defensive interceptors (without warheads) pointed at no one in peticular. And even if they could intercept Russian missiles, it would make no difference whatsoever. No 10 interceptors is going to blunt Doomsday.

The slippery slope of "interceptors now, nukes later" doesn't work here. First of all, we have nothing to base there. Out nuke fleet consists of Tridents, Minutemen, sea launched Tomahawks, and the ALCM (plus a few gravity bombs). We have nothing to base in Poland even if we wanted to. And why would we want to? We could blow up Russia twice over with just our land based ICBMs, and a dozen times over if we include SLBMs and nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

It's certainly understandible why Russia is doing this. They, as you said, see American interceptors a visible example of their waning influence over their old colonies in the west. To the uninformed, interceptor missiles based in Poland are certainly a threat to Russian detterence. But if you look at the capibilities and number of the interceptors, you realize that this system would be completely and utterly useless of Russia decided to push the big red button.

Good. That's what Poland deserves for this action. The anti-missiles are designed for Russia and no one else. If they were meant to intercept missiles from Iran or North Korea--neither of which are actual threats to Europe--they wouldn't be near Russia. They'd be in Greece and Turkey.

...ugh

*facepalm*

Do you even realize how these missiles work? Educate yourself.

The slippery slope of "interceptors now, nukes later" doesn't work here. First of all, we have nothing to base there. Out nuke fleet consists of Tridents, Minutemen, sea launched Tomahawks, and the ALCM (plus a few gravity bombs). We have nothing to base in Poland even if we wanted to. And why would we want to? We could blow up Russia twice over with just our land based ICBMs, and a dozen times over if we include SLBMs and nuclear tipped cruise missiles.

It's not just a question of nukes, or for that matter, mid phase interceptors that are now available. Think of it this way. If Russia didn't raise a peep now about this sort of interceptor, what happens if the US develops ground based ascent phase interceptors and moves those to Poland too? The kind that would be effective against Russian launches. How would that look then? The US could go "Oh, we're just upgrading stuff, the Russians are blowing smoke in the air. They didn't say anything when we started in the first place".

More than that, if they didn't raise a fuss here, what's to stop America from mass manufacturing interceptors and putting throughout all possible courses for Russian ICBMs? Don't forget, Bush effectively tore up the anti-ABM treaty, the only legal document that was supposed to make sure that MAD remained a viable deterrent. When he did that, he effectively told Russia "We're going to make ourselves nuke proof, and you don't have the money to do so, nyah!"

Russia's not looking at this in the immediate sense, or even five months down the line. They're looking at it down years. And let's be honest, they do have a reason to worry.


It's certainly understandible why Russia is doing this. They, as you said, see American interceptors a visible example of their waning influence over their old colonies in the west. To the uninformed, interceptor missiles based in Poland are certainly a threat to Russian detterence. But if you look at the capibilities and number of the interceptors, you realize that this system would be completely and utterly useless of Russia decided to push the big red button.

The less influence Russia has with its neighbors, the easier it becomes for the Western powers to encircle, isolate, maybe even neuter it, much like how they tried to do in the Cold War. I suspect Putin knows this.

Finlandization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finlandization); "The art of bowing to the East so carefully that it could not be considered mooning the West." - Kari Suomalainen

It's just realpolitik.

yeah,in the Cold War we had to buy weapons from both blocs,
and intended to buy fighters from both but when the Soviet Union collapsed we bought f-18Cs

Poland is linked with NATO.
Why would Russia attack NATO. Thats a loosing battle. An ex soviet union member on the other hand whom is not within NATO is easily attacked. Its like the genicide in South Africa. The weathly countries are not effected so no one cares. This dosnt make it morally right but no one acts when poor people get masacred.

That aside lets not forget that Russia was invaded first during the Olympic games. The rulers of Russia have just decided to use this as an excuse.

It was a dumbass idea in the first place - of THE US - to friggin put a missile "defense" system all around Russia. I wonder how the US would react if Russia did the same to them. They would go whining to the UN and to NATO, etc. Every Missile Defense System can also easily be an attack system. That action is like equal to placing millions of troops around your country, no wonder why Russia feels threatened.

It was a dumbass idea in the first place - of THE US - to friggin put a missile "defense" system all around Russia. I wonder how the US would react if Russia did the same to them. They would go whining to the UN and to NATO, etc. Every Missile Defense System can also easily be an attack system. That action is like equal to placing millions of troops around your country, no wonder why Russia feels threatened.

Trust me, the USA do not like international equality. Their government are a bunch of money making, fat cat opportunists who don't really give a shit about other people's rights. I am not saying Russia is all righteous as well, far from it, they also don't give a shit about the self determination of South Ossetians. They have been expansionist and will remain so for a long long time.

It's not just a question of nukes, or for that matter, mid phase interceptors that are now available. Think of it this way. If Russia didn't raise a peep now about this sort of interceptor, what happens if the US develops ground based ascent phase interceptors and moves those to Poland too? The kind that would be effective against Russian launches. How would that look then? The US could go "Oh, we're just upgrading stuff, the Russians are blowing smoke in the air. They didn't say anything when we started in the first place".

More than that, if they didn't raise a fuss here, what's to stop America from mass manufacturing interceptors and putting throughout all possible courses for Russian ICBMs? Don't forget, Bush effectively tore up the anti-ABM treaty, the only legal document that was supposed to make sure that MAD remained a viable deterrent. When he did that, he effectively told Russia "We're going to make ourselves nuke proof, and you don't have the money to do so, nyah!"

Russia's not looking at this in the immediate sense, or even five months down the line. They're looking at it down years. And let's be honest, they do have a reason to worry.


Again i will ask, as my point seems to have went fairly ignored, how is one single sentence of what you said valid or of any concern to anyone when both Countries have Nuclear Submarine fleets with uninterceptable cruise missles that can launch off the very shores of thier enemies and anhiate anything and everything at virtual will?

Again i will ask, as my point seems to have went fairly ignored, how is one single sentence of what you said valid or of any concern to anyone when both Countries have Nuclear Submarine fleets with uninterceptable cruise missles that can launch off the very shores of thier enemies and anhiate anything and everything at virtual will?

Redundancy. Nuclear submarines do get lost every now and again, and those that don't, especially the missile submarines, are almost always tracked by hunter subs the moment they leave harbor. Launch sequences in boomers take time, and in that time, any tracking hunter submarine can sink them before the missiles are prepared to launch. It's the main reason why neither country has completely phased out their land and air based nuclear weapons. And let's not forget that America has the SOSUS net, a string of sonar buoys all across the Atlantic that were built to prevent your scenario to begin with.

And more importantly, following the fall of the Soviet Union, the state of Russia's naval arm is simply appalling.

Furthermore, cruise missiles generally do not carry nuclear warheads. And they can be intercepted by air defense networks. You're thinking missile submarines with SLBMs, NOT cruise missiles. You've told others to learn about what interceptors can and can't do. I think you need to brush up on your ICBM and SLBM knowledge a bit.

Perhaps we can divide Poland between us? Some kind of pact that would clearly define our spheres of influence?

We will need to build anther huge wall all first, to split the country in half like Germany was.

Na, better idea would of been if NATO would stop taking in old Warsaw memebers.

Please, this is like Russia being concerned that their victim is wearing sunglasses before being dunked in a bubbling volcano.

Please, this is like Russia being concerned that their victim is wearing sunglasses before being dunked in a bubbling volcano.

If you do not think that both sides have been attempting to create and implement effective strategies as how to best neuter the other's ability to conduct a retaliatory nuclear strike or otherwise mitigate the effects of MAD for the last 40 years, then you are going to be very bitterly, disappointed.

If you do not think that both sides have been attempting to create and implement effective strategies as how to best neuter the other's ability to conduct a retaliatory nuclear strike or otherwise mitigate the effects of MAD for the last 40 years, then you are going to be very bitterly, disappointed.

And after 40 years and hundreds of billions of dollars are we one speck closer to having any ability to prevent world wide annialation post launch? Nope. Will we ever be? Nope. Its like trying to upgrade your eyedropper to a plastic sand bucket to hold back the oceans tide. Its silly and pointless.

Lets spend hundreds of billions on making friends with people and prevent a launch in the first place. Seems like a FAR better and more effective use of money. The largest event in modern history that made the world a safer place in terms of nuclear destruction was the semi democratization of the USSR. It wasnt some uber ABM system.

And after 40 years and hundreds of billions of dollars are we one speck closer to having any ability to prevent world wide annialation post launch? Nope. Will we ever be? Nope. Its like trying to upgrade your eyedropper to a plastic sand bucket to hold back the oceans tide. Its silly and pointless.


The history of endless warfare by humanity for a variety of reasons, often influenced by resources and land, is silly and pointless. More people die from the fighting over resources and land than the lack thereof causes.

Doesn't stop people from doing so though. And those who solely try to get friends tend to get a dirt nap.

In the interests of survival, in the end, it's not so silly. But only because the whole world is silly.

Every time someone says "you cannot", someone else will ask "why not?"

The history of endless warfare by humanity for a variety of reasons, often influenced by resources and land, is silly and pointless. More people die from the fighting over resources and land than the lack thereof causes.

Doesn't stop people from doing so though. And those who solely try to get friends tend to get a dirt nap.

In the interests of survival, in the end, it's not so silly. But only because the whole world is silly.

I never suggested to solely get friends. We have a perfectly viable system of defence as it sits. Spending money on ABM systems beyond a basic ability to remove a small handful of rogue missiles is pointless and stupid and does nothing to further our strategic goals, unless our strategic goal is to make JPL and Lockheed richer and the taxpayer poorer. This isnt a matter of people dieing from fighting over resources or land or any of the things you mentioned. Its an issue of wasting countless hundreds of billions on a system that ultimatly does absolutly nothing even on the off chance that it even works. Its not even remotely an issue of survival or any of the scary code words you want to use to scare people into buying into a completly worthless program.

If America can put anti-missile batteries in Russia's backyard then Russia should put ABMs in Cuba. It's that sheer arrogance by America that drives Russia into the extremes.

If America can put anti-missile batteries in Russia's backyard then Russia should put ABMs in Cuba. It's that sheer arrogance by America that drives Russia into the extremes.

For the hundreth time, why should either side care?

I'm hoping for US/ Russian tensions to stay as they are; and that John McCain wins the presidency. Because with his mega anti-Russian, veteran commie fighter mentality, war with the Russian Federation will be inevitable. Blah blah blah, some kind of WWIII thing, United States gets decimated, I'm happy, and then we go on.

I'm hoping for US/ Russian tensions to stay as they are; and that John McCain wins the presidency. Because with his mega anti-Russian, veteran commie fighter mentality, war with the Russian Federation will be inevitable. Blah blah blah, some kind of WWIII thing, United States gets decimated, I'm happy, and then we go on.

Yea, but the war would cost to much (money, death), for both sides.

Well of course, that's how war goes.

If America can put anti-missile batteries in Russia's backyard then Russia should put ABMs in Cuba. It's that sheer arrogance by America that drives Russia into the extremes.

have we told them they cant ? given.
the Russians cant afford it. the trajectories of US missles toward Russia go the other way over the north pole even if they could.

If the US were trying to deflect A Russian missile strike they would place ABMs in Canada. my guess is Russians have failed to read Pythagoras's writings.

How about these countries...US Russia...everyone...let's stop with this power bull shit. Jesus christ we only live once and there's no guarantee there's anything after this life, so how about we chill the fuck out and enjoy life....for once.

have we told them they cant ? given.
the Russians cant afford it. the trajectories of US missles toward Russia go the other way over the north pole even if they could.

If the US were trying to deflect A Russian missile strike they would place ABMs in Canada. my guess is Russians have failed to read Pythagoras's writings.

I believe the US wanted to do just that, but Canada said no.

I believe the US wanted to do just that, but Canada said no.

which is why we declared the northwest passage an international waterway and deployed them there.

which is why we declared the northwest passage an international waterway and deployed them there.

Just because you *say* it, doesn't make it so; I would have thought you had learned that after the whole 'Victory in Iraq' bullshit.

Just because you *say* it, doesn't make it so; I would have thought you had learned that after the whole 'Victory in Iraq' bullshit.

too bad the EU, Russia China and pretty much every country with a decent sized international shipping sector has declared it an international water way. Sorry Canada your the US solely declaring victory against the rest of the world on this one.

too bad the EU, Russia China and pretty much every country with a decent sized international shipping sector has declared it an international water way. Sorry Canada your the US solely declaring victory against the rest of the world on this one.

And yet it's only the Americans who are making the aggressive posturing by continually violating the arctic archipelago's water.

I've noticed that the US is one of a handful of nations yet to ratify the UNCLOS agreement, so for you to claim to that the waters are international waters, when you yourself have failed to agree to, is rather hypocritical, don't you think?

Oh no, that's right, it's fine for America to walk over all other countries of the world, with everyone complying with their whims and bullshit, but far be it from anyone else to want to protect their sovereign waters; I must have forgotten that Sovereignty is a wholly America idea, and it's only ever the US's sovereignty that's threatened. :rolleyes:

And yet it's only the Americans who are making the aggressive posturing by continually violating the arctic archipelago's water.

cant violate international waters. this is large due to the northwest passage not being deiced enough for commercial travel yet. give it a few more years and the EU and Russia will be trading through it.

I've noticed that the US is one of a handful of nations yet to ratify the UNCLOS agreement, so for you to claim to that the waters are international waters, when you yourself have failed to agree to, is rather hypocritical, don't you think?

considering the concept of international waters have existed before the UNCLOS, the UN or even the league of nations, No I do not find it hypocritical.
unless of course you would like to undo the 150 years of treaties and close off the Bosporus, Dardanelles, and Danish straits again ???
All of which have a much stronger claim to territorial waters then Canada over the northwest passage.

Oh no, that's right, it's fine for America to walk over all other countries of the world, with everyone complying with their whims and bullshit, but far be it from anyone else to want to protect their sovereign waters; I must have forgotten that Sovereignty is a wholly America idea, and it's only ever the US's sovereignty that's threatened. :rolleyes:

look if you can't handle having an international water way so close to your territory, cede the territory over to us and we will glad handle it for you.

look if you can't handle having an international water way so close to your territory, cede the territory over to us and we will glad handle it for you.

Ah yes, typical American crap.

God knows you'd be all up in arms if anyone told you that a bunch of your territory was international waters.

I don't think land can be in international waters if it's been claimed by someone ;)

I don't think land can be in international waters if it's been claimed by someone ;)

I'm sure the Taiwanese beg to differ...;)

God knows you'd be all up in arms if anyone told you that a bunch of your territory was international waters.

Like monkeys with their asses on fire some of them.

I don't think land can be in international waters if it's been claimed by someone ;)

large amounts of international waters are claimed. It is not what is claimed it is what claims are recognized. And no one recognizes the northwest passage as territorial waters.

I never suggested to solely get friends. We have a perfectly viable system of defence as it sits. Spending money on ABM systems beyond a basic ability to remove a small handful of rogue missiles is pointless and stupid and does nothing to further our strategic goals, unless our strategic goal is to make JPL and Lockheed richer and the taxpayer poorer. This isnt a matter of people dieing from fighting over resources or land or any of the things you mentioned. Its an issue of wasting countless hundreds of billions on a system that ultimatly does absolutly nothing even on the off chance that it even works. Its not even remotely an issue of survival or any of the scary code words you want to use to scare people into buying into a completly worthless program.

Didn't stop people from investing in the supposedly MAD obsoleting Star Wars program now did it?

Didn't stop people from investing in the supposedly MAD obsoleting Star Wars program now did it?
Although the main thing these investments have proved is how difficult it is to stop a strike.
But still, the very existence of ABM (more precisely, Anti-ICBM - tactical BM are easy to kill) makes the nuclear war something less of an absolute "no" and more of something to weigh against the gains.



P.S. BTW, I've responded to the TG, and posted a longer reply it on the forum (in a closed section) - hope it'll be easier to discuss there.

P.S. BTW, I've responded to the TG, and posted a longer reply it on the forum (in a closed section) - hope it'll be easier to discuss there.

What is this, the NSG Diaspora? Makes me sad ...

What is this, the NSG Diaspora? Makes me sad ...
It's a conspiracy, but you don't know about it.

It's a conspiracy, but you don't know about it.

It just seems to be happening a lot. Once the Mods discouraged links to 'competing' fora, now it seems almost encouraged.

Meh, I'm just one of those sad buggers who cleans up the kitchen at parties. I can never accept that the fun is over.

Although the main thing these investments have proved is how difficult it is to stop a strike.
But still, the very existence of ABM (more precisely, Anti-ICBM - tactical BM are easy to kill) makes the nuclear war something less of an absolute "no" and more of something to weigh against the gains.


Those early developments though, laid the groundwork for future ideas once technology caught up for true ABM work. And while there are treaties against nuclear weapons in space, there aren't for normal weapons, which I suspect may be the next development of ABM technology.


P.S. BTW, I've responded to the TG, and posted a longer reply it on the forum (in a closed section) - hope it'll be easier to discuss there.

Done and done.

well now just WHO opened up the cold war again the country that put missles in poland or the country that warned that it is a bad idea?

Given that the missiles are not targeted at Russia, and would be totally ineffective at stopping much in the way of any more than three (out of well over a thousand) inbound Russian missilesit would seem that the Russians are merely using this as a sort of pretense to moan about the evil Americans protruding into their private Empire. Seriously, shouldn't Russia always control the countries it has oppressed for so very long, huh?

Ah yes, typical American crap.

God knows you'd be all up in arms if anyone told you that a bunch of your territory was international waters.

you mean like the Bering strait ???
that the US and Russia both consider to be an international water way.

I am sorry Canada we have already made similar concessions.
Canada reaps the benefit of such concessions with greater ease to supply arctic bases along the north western coast because we have opened up our straits.
and playing the US is being nationalistic card when Canada is behaving more so then Russia and the US combined is simply childish.

Didn't stop people from investing in the supposedly MAD obsoleting Star Wars program now did it?

Im unclear on your stance to ABM systems. Are you now agreeing with me that its a foolish way to spend money and your giving me the Regan Star Wars system as the classic example of huge amounts of money flushed down the toilet for nothing?

Im unclear on your stance to ABM systems. Are you now agreeing with me that its a foolish way to spend money and your giving me the Regan Star Wars system as the classic example of huge amounts of money flushed down the toilet for nothing?

I never agreed or disagreed with the ABM system. I am simply pointing out that every time someone invents an "unstoppable" weapon, someone will come up with a counter to it.

It is human nature to want to hold an edge over their enemies, real or imagined. Greed and fear will drive this want. Greed, for power and resources for themselves. And fear, of others who may also covet the same thing they do.

Also, the Star Wars program did not produce nothing. It produced a good piece of disinformation that the Soviet Union took for real. Furthermore, it showed just exactly what was needed for a theater level ABM system. It has laid out the groundwork. Now it is the turn of the 21st century to build up on it which sooner or later, someone will.

It is inevitable.