Slashdot Mirror
Putin Threatens US Missile Bases In Europe
Melugo writes to let us know that Russian president Vladimir Putin has warned that US plans to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe would force Moscow to target its weapons against Europe. This reader notes: "It feels like the Cold War all over again." "'If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we have to give ourselves new targets in Europe,' Putin said... 'It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles.'"
As the post is crying out for it:
In Soviet Russia, strategic weapons target you!
(The best contribution wins a 10 year all-inclusive activity holiday to Siberia.)
The US defenses are oriented and located to where they will NOT be able to counter ANY Russion launches toward the US or Europe.
Just do the damned trajectory math. It does not work for much anything except stuff being flung from Tehran.
Putin is doing what Bush does, just rabble rousing to distract people from all the crap he is pulling behind the scenes.
Let's think about this for a second. A missile defense system ... defends against missiles. So you're going to fight that by throwing missiles at it?
It seems what Mr. Putin needs is more artillery, not missiles. That's what I'd do if I was going to wage war against someone using a missile defense system.
I call Putin's bullshit. Defense is defense, it's not necessarily aimed against US. Iran and North Korea could come up with some primitive missiles in a few years. A mere defense mechanism doesn't "force" anyone to target nukes at a peaceful country.
It's the whole different matter that the missile shield is ineffective and a colossal waste of money.
"Russia has not overtly targeted Europe since agreeing after the fall of the Soviet Union not to direct missiles against specific countries, according to Pavel Felgenhauer, an independent military analyst based in Moscow. He added however, that that was simple technical matter, since a missile can be given a target within minutes." - MSNBC
So yes it is notable that the missles *might* be pointed at Europe but it is not the same as "Russia builds missles targeted at Europe".....
There's no place like ALT+HOME
what exactly are we talking here in regards to these defense in europe- because if it is that new fangled starwars like defense net Bush was talking about I hear the success rate is about 3/8
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
now i read some article somewhere last week that i can't quote and i don't remember where i read it so take what i say with a grain of salt. it was that the US was only going to have the capability in europe to stop only a very small number of missiles from a rouge state *COUGH* IRAN *COUGH* from shooting over 2-3 nukes at europe and that it couldnt possibly be considered any attempt to stop russia at all.
This is the same "targeting" rhetoric from the early 1990s all over again. Pretending that whether missiles are 'targeted' at some city somewhere, really changes the strategic position at all.
It's bullshit. Where a missile is 'targeted' has almost no real-world meaning. You can re-target a missile in a few seconds; in fact all submarine-launched and mobile missile systems have to be targeted right before launch, because the trajectories need to take into account the launch position.
The only scenario in which the 'default target' or preselected target of a missile might matter, would be an accidental launch. But even then, having the missiles aimed at neutral territory might not buy you much, because the unexpected launch itself might be perceived as hostile and engender a response; you can't depend on the mis-targeting for security -- that needs to be built-in to the command-and-control systems absolutely.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
It's not as if the system actually works!!
if I thought the missile defence screen actually worked...
but it doesn't. Which begs the question: is this security theatre played out on a large scale for our amusement and if it is then what's in it for Putin and Bush?
Just curious.
I am a leaf on the wind
These deployments of missile protection systems are limited in their rate of fire. When they work.
The Russians are not nearly as limited in firepower as the defense systems that could ever be deployed.
Artillery is also an excellent target since it can't shoot something coming from so far away. If you have a defensive ability to knock 3 missiles out of the sky in short order, yet your opponent can drop 20 on you, you're screwed, and so is your artillery.
My mom says I'm cool.
Have W. And Putin stand by an high-amperage electric fence and then give them a few beers. Sooner or later, one of the these 2 idiots will get the bright idea to have a contest to see who can piss on it. If we are lucky, they will both hit it at the same time. Or just send them out with Cehney to do some hunting. Issue will be solved.
To cast little bit more light on the topic. America decided to locate this shield in Poland and Czech. Since the decision had been taken, Russia started to threaten both countries, we (Poland) have export embargo (for example for meat) and some "warnings" and "good advices" from Russia. Now they try to convince Us other way around... My posting is little bit biased - Forgive me, but I spent all my childhood under the Russian occupation and regime in Poland, sorry, could not resist. So before anyone starting shouting at Bush please - thing twice. First Russia occupied Poland, Czech, Slovakia etc for 40 Years, then, after the collapse of the communism, they were against joining NATO by Our, independent then, countries. Then they are against this shield. Technically shield located partially in Poland and in Czech is no threat for Russia at all, they now this. Also, technically, this shield cannot defend nuclear attack for this part of Europe. Please Russia understand that You are Our "supervisor" no longer, we are independed countries and taking Our decisions Ourselves. lima
Because US missile bases in Europe threaten Putin? Honestly, the rethoric is more threatening than usual, but where did you expect the Russians to point their weapons at?
...makes me wish the EU to take a stronger stand. This isn't the cold war anymore where Europe was divided and I don't appreciate power plays over my head when the EU has more than enough economic might to not have to deal with this crap coming from the USA trying to install weapons in Europe and the Russians reacting to it.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Russia has IP rights for rockets and missiles! They're just exercising their rights!
Let's drop the pretense that Russia is in any way a modern democracy please. Elections are a joke, independent journalists are permanently silenced, and if you didn't order it you are certainly didn't doing much to investigate it. You are bullying surrounding nations as soon as they take any steps towards democracy or independence from you or displease you in any way. Fascists and neo-Nazis run rampant in the streets, with the police literarily looking on with arms crossed doing nothing.
And even with all this, Putin has soaring approval ratings, proving once again that nationlist pride is one of the most dangerous memes ever.
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
It's like the Cuban missile chrisis all over again, except this time it's the Americans playing crazy dangerous games with missiles.
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
This is nothing more then rhetoric for the domestic crowd.
The Russian objections to the US missile defense system are silly. Even if the system ever worked perfectly (it doesn't), it would never be able to stop more then a handful of missiles. Russia has more then a handful of missiles. The only thing the missile defense system can do is blunt an extremely small scale nuclear attack by ballistic missiles. Launch anything BUT that exact type of attack, and the entire missile defense system is worthless. Beyond this, the US has offered to include Russia in the shield, share their tracking data, in general, make a worthless defense against Russian attack even more worthless by making it transparent. North Korea, Iran, and anyone else thinking of how much fun it would be to hold a dozen nukes should be worried. For Russia, this is a joke.
Putin really is just playing to scare his population and score a few 'against America' points. It is a cry for attention and a desperate pleading to PLEASE start some verbal shit to keep his population focused on foreign 'threats' rather than some of the more crushing domestic issues Russia faces. If the Dems kill the program, he will happily take credit for scaring the American weapons of Russia oppression away... when the reality is that the Dems have always found the program to be a waste of money and are happy to tear into a lame duck president on the issue... not because Putin is a scary guy.
Look, the ballistic missile defense system is a joke. We already have one; it is called a few thousand nuclear missiles that can hit anywhere in the globe. I would be the first person to advocate throwing this worthless money hog on a chopping block, or at least relegating it to a lab for more 'research'. That said, Putin's saber rattling has nothing to do with reality. Putin knows that the ballistic missile defense program is a joke, and even if it wasn't a joke, it is only effective against nations with less then a dozen nukes... and it is safe to say Russia has more then a dozen nukes laying around these days.
If you want a real headline, make it this "Putin recall history and tries to invoke Cold War to score domestic political points, Americans continue to piss money into the wind and uphill". This is a domestic issue getting bounced around by a global media and nothing more.
And how is it that russia has its new found power? Well its all that oil that they now sell. It was a lot easier to keep russia weak when the price of oil was 20 $ a barrel rather than 60$. One could argue that the price of oil was going to rise regardless, because of chinese and indian demands on the supply. But president dumb fuck hasn't helped by destabilizing the worlds major oil producing region.
I'm from Europe and want no part in defending US soil by placing targets on ours. Well my country (Finland) isn't in NATO and thus not a bitch of the USA like Poland for example. I know the Czechs don't want that fucking system on their soil. It's so damn wrong if their government is going to force it upon them anyways. And it's not like the system even works.. You throw 10 missiles at it at the same time and at least half of them will go thru..
...real threat, not the USA? His Chinese neighbors don't seem to realize that either.
Our three countries should be banding together to fight this so called religion of "peace".
Uh...Where are they going to get the money?
Let's see who can put the first man into space this time.
What?
Putin wants to increase the threat of violence because it allows him to have more control.
Bush wants to increase the threat of violence because it allows him to have more control.
Bush's actions give Putin a chance to increase the threat of violence so he can have more control.
Then threatening actions by Putin give Bush a chance to increase the threat of violence so he can have more control.
Mental illness feeds on itself.
See the free 3-part BBC movie: The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear.
Threatening violence is only one of the formulas of manipulation. Here are others: The Bush administration found support for war through manipulation.
(If you are a U.S. citizen and you don't like my summary of U.S. government corruption, you must write your own. You can't say you love your country if you abandon thinking clearly when your country is in trouble.)
You know the one where we both have missles so no one shoots?
God spoke to me.
Bush and Putin are geting together for a nice friendly sleepover in Connecticut. They get into their pajamas, have a pillow fight, and are sipping the hot chocolate that Barabara Bush brings them.
Bush: So, Putey. We have a problem here in the US. We don't have a rubber stamp Congress any more, but our milkies [that's what he calls the Military-Industrial Complex] need their allowance. We need some sort of way to make sure that they'll be getting their money even with a hostile Congress. A big threat of some sort, just like during the Cold War - you guys had everyone so scared nobody would challenge a vast military budget.
Putin: Da. The old days when I could get my GRU and KGB buddies everything they needed out of the huge military budget are long gone - it was bad for the economy, but great for us! These days, we have more resources but the people are scrambling over whatever crumbs organized crime leaves behind. We need a unifying opponent, who will let me get those citizens and mob bosses solidly back under my thumb. We too need a new Cold War - the Chechnyans just aren't doing it for us.
Bush: Great! Ma!
Putin and Bush together: More Ovaltine, please!
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
Yes, only this time Europe goes dark without access to Russian natural gas.
Perhaps the French had the right idea with going 80% nuclear for their electric power needs.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
It's not so much that the Cold War is starting all over again, but that it never really ended.
Quiz: True or False -- On a scale of 1 to 10, what is your middle name?
Just look at the map...
seriously i just now got done watching Dr. Strangelove and this is up on /.
crazy!
The best missile defense system is ending this excessive military spending, it seems like we're going back to the cold war! Everybody rolling muscles does NOT bring security ONE step closer.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Let us forget the occupation for a moment and concentrate on the heart of the matter : an increase of defensive/offensive arsenal inn poland by the US in czech and Poland is directly aimed at Russia. Naturally Russia will then react and try everything from economical to political pressure.
The US would do exactly the same if Russia were to put more defensive/offensive arsenal in (hypothetically) cuba, or mexico city.
Now if you want my opinion, No bonus point for neither the US nor Russia for not pursuying disarmement while lambasting Iran or some other country to try to build nuclear arms. And lately the US instead even make it worst by stirring the bee hives.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Unfortunately this missile sheild is from some idiots stuck in the cold war and trying to restart it. If they would stop listening to geriatric corrupt idiots like Kissenger perhaps there would be more interest in North Korea or Iran instead of putting a missile sheild in the north of Europe that would have been far too late to be useful even when Reagan was President.
It's from idiots that know they "won" the cold war but want a replay because they can't figure out how it happened.
Doesn't Russia know that nobody cares about them anymore? The only country that the U.S. fears right now is China, and China isn't going to start a war with us any time in the next 50 years.
This must be Putin/Russia's way of attempting to stay relevant somehow? It seems pretty obvious to me (and must be also to the Russian military) that any sort of US missile shield would have no chance in heck of stopping a nuclear barrage from Russia. The system is just not good enough. It's really only capable of taking out a smaller strike by only a few missiles. This in no way would be able to offset a "mutual destruction" type scenario...
I just don't see how this is a threat to Russia at all.
It's just gotta be a tantrum aimed at riling up the Russian's old foe for old time's sake.
You probably don't realize how much power and influence Russia has in Europe simply because it controls all the energy. It doesn't have to shoot any rockets anywhere, it just needs to shut down the pipelines. So you can keep cursing at Putin all you want if it makes you feel better, but Russia is a player that we will still have to reckon with.
And by the way one of these puppies won't be stopped by our multi-bullion dollar missile defense system. Probably should have used that money for healthcare and better schools...Hmm, excessive spending on military infrastructure at the expense of taking care of it's citizens sounds familiar ... oh yeah.. Soviet Union did that. Perhaps we are not that different after all. Now that's a thought!
-100: Old and lame
Great title .. "Putin Threatens US" ..
.. glorious news speak .. formerly called propaganda ..
..
..
.. and the trillions of dollars america and it's allies .. flavor of the day .. are pouring into the stockpiling of strategic materials .. new weapon and detection systems including nuclear .. significantly increased strategic FOREIGN military bases .. and a stated intention to weaponize space ..
.. america is the ONLY nation currently with FOREIGN militray bases of any significance ..
.. or agin us"
.. all started by the robber barons of america and it's allies of the day ..
.. this time .. under the guise of fighting (read: military escalation) an "unending" global war on terrorism ..
.. WAR= We Are Right
.. only now with the Cheney's master plan fully implemented .. the outsourcing of the US military .. and implementation of a substantial global mercenary force .. operating outside of any goverment oversite or control .. even more so ..
.. regardless of the rational .. ethical .. or moral justifications made ..
..
who is threatening who ???
ah!!
really what chose do the other countries of the world have
given the current
and in truth very old american imperialistic foreign policy
after all
under the specter of "ur either fur us
and just as in the past
sold to the american public
after all Wolfowitz did in fact call it World War III
and just as in the past it's really all about profit
when corporations go to war it's always about money
it's really all about the ME and MINE and the BOTTOM line
How about the US keeps it's grubby little paws out of Europe.
I'm afraid it's more serious.
Monday morning editions of western European regional newspapers are verifying reports of construction of Russian SRBM silos in the southwest of France, where fashion sits: Putin armed Biarritz.
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns
..the US is all over the planet (not just north america), with military bases in over *one hundred* countries, including an ever widening ring around russia especially on the asian and eastern european side.. In any altercation,from the Russian POV, all of them are legit targets, along with NATO "allies".
I mean, this isn't geographical/political rocket science..err..wait, yes it is
What would the US say and do if Russia was establishing full time bases in Canada and Mexico and setting up missile sites, and so on? See how that works when you stop looking at events one sided, even if you think you are paying attention to the news?
Country A wants to place a missile defense system as close geographically as possible to the launch sites of country B. From a purely military standpoint there is no way country B can allow this to happen without a fight. The system doesn't work! Even if that is the case, there is no guarantee it will remain this way. It doesn't take much thought to see that this system, because of its location, can be used in an offensive manner, and is a direct threat to the defense of country B. How far do you think this would fly if Russia wanted to place the same type of system on Cuba? This isn't even a equal comparison. For that look to the Canadian border as the site location and now it doesn't look so innocent.
One of the biggest mistakes that we Westerners committed was to admit the Russians into the G-8. The original G-7 was intended to be the group of leading industrialized democracies committed to Western values.
We admitted the Russians in the hope that, although Russia was still highly non-Western (in, for example, its treatment of sexual-orientation or ethnic minorities), being lenient on Russia would encourage the Russians to modernize their society along Western lines. Well, we were wrong. Just last week, the Russian police smiled in approval as ordinary Russians violently beat up participants in a demonstration calling for rights for homosexuals. Some of the victims of the violence were European politicians who had participated into the demonstration.
The Russians make a mockery of the G-8 and its principles. Now, Putin is idly threatening to point his nuclear missiles at Eastern Europe. Nuclear annihilation is serious business. Before Russia joined the G-8, no member of the G-7 ever threatened nuclear annihilation against a prosperous, Western democracy.
The time has come for us to end this nonsense. We should expel Russia from the G-8, restoring the orignal name of "G-7".
Yeah, you are probably right. I seem to go in flame mode when the subject falls on de facto dictators of 3. world countries suffering from delusions of grandeur.
This ain't funny.
Who stands to benefit from a new cold war?
The military-industrial complex. They would love to have another cold war, with lots of money and visionary projects.
Also, the leaders. Putin is getting the most of out this, since he has stifled opposition and controls the media. And Bush is probably hoping to create an enemy large enough to scare the US into voting for a Republican in the next presidential elections.
Stop the brainwash
If the USA was going to ever nuke anyone first
Um, what do you mean "ever"? I hate to be the one to break this to you, but the US is the only country to have nuked another one first.
Ok, you got me there. That is true. But they deserved it. Don't kick the big kid in the balls then complain he kicks your ass. We could have nuked stalin in the early 50's, before they had the bomb, and didn't. (Probably would have saved Millions of Russian lives too. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people.) Could have nuked any number of dinky little evil tin hat dictators or Islamist crazys, and didn't. Russia has nothing to worry about, from DEFENSIVE missiles.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I know you're just a troll, but, it's kinda hard to hit "terr'ists" with WMDs. Considering they're not a country... or a city... or in any way organized enough to really have some sort of location that can be targeted.
Honestly, I don't get it. Both why Putin would make an ass out of himself like this, and why we need missile defense systems in Europe. But then again, I'm not a fan of the military of any country. I fail to see its utility, when the money involved could be put to better uses.
Still, sounds like more politicians trying to flex their muscles.
Decent people intend to place safer locks on their front doors. The thieve is furious and shouts: I'll improve my tools for breaking in so that your newer locks doesn't make you any safer!"
We need Jack Bauer for this!
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
What you humourously call the "milkies" are not the only ones who profit from military expenditure. Because the military process is funded by expanding the US Federal Debt it creates (paid for out of our future tax burdens) even greater profits for the shareholders of the central banks . Read the whole book to learn who these shareholders are, and thus who effectively owns America, its government and its people (and also who is richer than Bill G). The "central bank" in the USA is of course the privately owned Federal Reserve. The bankers funded both sides in both World War I and WWII.
Actually, the soviet union collapsed when the regions started having enough political power (due to economic development)
to demand some sort of autonomy.
There was the occupation of the tv-tower in Vilnius as response, causing the vote on the retention of power to slide.
This in turn led to the august coup Which failed,
and forced the supreme soviet to finally give up it's power monopoly.
So I would say, the Soviet Union collapsed, due to economic reform in the vassal states, without political reform to back it.
The funny thing about this way of thinking, is that it fits with the doctrine, that a change in economic power without a change in political influence leads to violent change.
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
Here is a 30 minute film (shown in the 80s by the BBC, in the TV programme 'QED') that will just remind you why we must never, ever have a nuclear war. It is in three parts on YouTube. Here is a link to the first part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vdzyqQIEAI
Also, look up "The War Game", and "Threads".
And as usual, with this current posturing, Europe gets it in the shorts _again_. Nuclear war between US and Russia? Europe gets carpet bombed.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Did we aim our missles at Russia when Russia kept helping the Iranians build their nuclear technology?
hmmm
Fuck Putin in his KGB ass. Hes a criminal and a dictator out to restore good old mother russia to its evil old ways.
Perhaps Putin is afraid of what the US might do if Mutually Assured Destruction was no longer mutually assured? After all, while a good shield can help save lives, it can also cost a lot more if the bearer of the shield no longer has to worry about the consequences of drawing his sword.
The ______ Agenda
Read The Economist for broader coverage of this issue. What concerns them and other news media is the frosting of relations between Russia and American.
However, and I had never heard this put before, Russia defines so much about itself by its opposition to the USA. So an increased sense of Russian worth is correlated with sabre rattling of this sort.
More points raised:
* The deterents posed by the Shield could never, ever stop the amount of weapons Russia has.
* The argument for the shields "They are only for defense", echoes the Iranian defence of their Nuclear Weapons program. We don't believe the Iranians, why should the Russians believe the USA/Europe??
* This is all about influence, rather than actual defense
* Putin won't be around forever
A snippet of coverage:: A few interceptors, a big gap
They also had a whole special on it a few weeks back, if you're interested, it's in there.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
ok, so you felt better back then. Would you have felt the same way if you were living in East Germany?
I realize that you think that I am trolling, but I really am not. By now, you should have spent a little bit of time over there. In addition, I would guess that you talked to many of the ex-citizens. so, do you think that you would have felt better living in East Germany? If so, why?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
When the Kremlin threatens nuclear annihilation against Eastern Europe, the very least that we can do is to expel Russia from the G-8. Expulsion from the G-8 does not terminate relations between Russia and the West. Those relations shall continue. However, expulsion does send a strong, symbolic message that we Westerners condemn the authoritarian impulses of the Russian government.
Yes and no. You make it sound like it's a failure of armour, or that it lost the race, if it doesn't stop _everything_. But ever since some bronze age guy strapped a piece of metal to his chest, the goal was _not_ to be 100% invulnerable.
See, being invulnerable is too impractical. It makes you way too slow for a start. The goal is to, on the average, survive 1-2 glancing hits before a well aimed shot finally takes you out. That's already advantage enough.
Tanks and artillery shells are such an example. Tanks are not even designed to resist plunging artillery fire at all. The top armour is ridiculously thin, so even a 30mm gun from above can penetrate it. (Why do you think the A10 has that gun?)
Tanks against long range artillery are just supposed to be immune to shrapnel, since the probability of being hit by a howitzer shell is pretty low. So you just take that risk instead of making a 200 ton tank that can resist it... at the expense of being a large slow target. Tanks are supposed to resist hits from other tanks, and even then it's acceptable if _some_ penetrate.
Even tanks against tanks, the side and back armour is actually much thiner than the front armour, so eventually you will show a side to the enemy that can be penetrated. Or you'll get hit by aviation, anti-tank mines, whatever. Even the KV-1 or Matilda in WW2, which were damn close to invulnerable to the tank guns of that time, could still be killed eventually. You can't be completely immune, ever, and even trying would make you slow and expensive too. So noone even tries.
It's more of a bang per buck question than even imagining that you're invulnerable. It took 4 Shermans to kill a Tiger in WW2, but that was actually good bang per buck, because the 4 Shermans cost less to produce and to ship than it took the Germans to produce 1 Tiger. It may seem callous, but look at which side won the war. So you really try to figure out a good compromise, not go for invulnerability.
And historically the same happened before tanks too. The plate armour on renaissance knights, for example, wasn't invulnerable either, except to missiles. The lance for example, had the _massive_ momentum of a knight and horse behind that steel tip, so there was no realistic way to stop it except a stone wall. So noone even tried to be armoured enough to stop that.
The closest we've ever been to invulnerable, were the ironclads of the 19'th century, before the guns caught up. They were almost immune to each others' guns, but even those were still vulnerable to ramming, torpedoes (back then an explosive on a long pole), mines, etc.
Nukes are a whole new problem, because even one getting through can still do a _lot_ of damage. But that's basically a new problem, rather than "see, armour against guns lost too." Armour against guns works perfectly well for _that_ class of problems. It didn't lose by any reckoning.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
an analogy.
Angry Child A has found a new type of brick he can throw in the face of Angry Child B (after Angry Child B has been napping)
Angry Child B responds by saying I still have loads of bricks, and i'll throw them at Napping Child C.
Busy Child D sits quietly in a corner he's making pacifiers for A
Angry Child E is finally starting to make amends after his fight with Angry Child F
In 1984, it was argued that you needed 3 superpowers in to keep the people living in them subdued permanently, wonder what happens when there's 4, 5 or 6...
A- U.S.A.
B- Russia
C- E.U.
D- P.R.C
E- India
F- Pakistan
In world politics, best way to understand what happens, is to compare them to small children...
I'm not looking forward for civilization reaching it's teenage years...
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
Please ask your girlfriend if she will be enjoyed when rocket from Poland/Czech will meet with a missile over Ukrainian territory and nuclear infection fall down on Ukraine.
The Russian President should have the value of patience, because any problem could be solved by diplomacy, there is no such thing about the effects of violence and that the cold war is really over. For the American perspective, it should also try to minimize its presence in the part of eastern Europe, it is most likely that the nations in eastern Europe to accept offers from the US, so surely Russia would then follow suit. The two nations need a talk. Let's discuss this further, you can reach me at: http://forum.affiliatebot.com/register.php
OF COURSE they will target US missile defense systems deployed in Europe. It would be stupid and irresponsible to NOT target them. That they will target Europe because of this is just a side effect. This is not really a threat, he's just stating the facts. Another thing he should do is restore Russian missile bases on Cuba as well. Otherwise he won't be able to do anything when the next psycho in the White House decides to "give the gift of democracy" to Russia.
You very nearly DID start a nuclear holocaust some time later, though.
The only thing stopping you in the first place was the treat of mutually assured destruction. It works both ways.
all i can say is, atleast he isn't engaging in premtive wars, aka iraq and afganhastan.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Lets all hear it for George Bush, now officially the worst president ever. Any president can start a war, and a rare few could start two, but to start two wars and then re-start the Cold War, that takes a unique blend of incompetence, bad judgment, and lack of diplomatic skills. Throw in Katrina response, illegal wiretapping, torture memos, Plame, cronyism, and run-of-the mill lying and I think we have a winner.
Like many have already said, the defense system itself is not a threat of any kind to Russia. This is just a little word game by Putin in order to get some more power. Besides as someone mentioned before it really doesn't matter much where the nukes are targeted 'cause the target can be change so quickly.
Anyways, here in Finland we're all safe from nukes atleast, because I doubt that Russians are not so eager to radiate themselves that they'd target any missiles here. And, as long as Finland isn't a member of NATO, Putin won't give a shit about us.
"It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
If we has a "completely bozo insane" tag, would that add points or subract them?
- noone has a problem with russian missiles placed in canada. - noone would mind a few russian airbases in canade and mexico and maybe one on /the island/ for old times sake
- a few floating carriers off the coast.
noone will mind those right?
so whats the problem? oh... where do the /shot down/ missiles aka intercepted missile parts fill fall? come on 5th graders lets do small gravity problem.
if your next door neighbor is constantly acting funny, carrying arms and kinda eying you funny, his new friends that stop by the bbq also give you the eye for a few years you also might worry unless you a bubble head of course.
so in a way you say russia should be the bubblehead and not worry. put yourself in that position if ur smart enough. so far feel lucky noting is built yet. you think some missiles being retargeted towards people you dont know is the end of this? not this time around...
Dont Judge The situation by the Misfortunate. Goga.
From what I've heard, you'd just pick up the debris and be done with it. Short-term exposure to radioactive debris is not the end of the world, as long as we're not talking about a full scale detonation, which wouldn't occur obviously if the missile was destroyed.
All this remind me 1941, when in Poland and Chehia German Wermacht established new weapons on just Russian borders etc etc. And now Americans doing the same, ha? . Even the same subjects in political speeches. deja vu ?
they want their cold war back.
(Or Reagan called, or whatever, think of something, this space for rent)
I like how you talk almost like MAD wouldn't affect you. If someone is going down they generally end up taking everyone else they can down with them too. MAD is the only thinking holding the world together atm. One day that may change, but not today. Crazy little extremists right now however are threatening that system. They have this fucked up little desire TO die. Thats a system that is completely incompatible even with itself. It's a genetic, dead, end.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Firmly in the US side.
Latinamerica declared itself a zone free of nuclear weapons many decades ago, as a consequence no nuclear weapons are pointed against our countries. If anything, that saved the ass of Argentina when they fought against the UK, a nuclear state. Had Argentina had WMDs, who knows if the war fought for the control of the Malvinas islands in the 80s would have been limited to conventional warfare.
The strategic importance of Latinamerica can't be denied, just remembre the Cuba misile crisis. My point is that Europe, being equally or even more important strategically could also decide to go neutral on the issue of nuclear weapons.
But when countries like the UK and Poland (amongst others) shamefully allow "rendition" of terrorism suspects and beg for the US to deploy missiles on their territories, well, there is little hope for Europe to stop being a board for the global monopoly game between RUssia and the US where European defense interests are decided in Washington and antgonized in Moscow.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
conventional stoppage with something like the Patriot is somewhere between 40-70%, and ICBM's can't be stopped with so many dummy warheads.
Example: Russia places its rockets in Canada, for its own defense of course. What reaction would you expect from the U.S.?
You all forget the one thing that explains Russia's reactions: Russians are afraid that US with its allies will eventually get the missile defense system working and they will find a way to scale it to disable first Chinese and then secondly Russian nuclear threat. When we set our time frame to 2030 or 2050 and start project future advances in technology and manufacturing, it isn't so far fetched idea that the West could have in the future capabilities to build and deploy working SDI against any other nuclear power. This is what Russia is afraid.
It should also be pointed out that because Russia doesn't have large economic, industrial and technological base, and it will not have these in foreseeable future, there is no way to challenge the west after a working version of SDI has been build and deployed. It should also be pointed out that if and when west builds it SDI, China will probably build it's own version of SDI quite shortly after the west. So if we look at 2050, the strategic outlook may be very different: we have the West and China safely behind SDI and the rest of the world either trying to remain neutral or aligned to either party. In this situation Russians would be in very difficult situation: they must supply oil and gas to China or China will use it's military might to get what it wants and the West that challenges Russia in it's neighbourhood (Ukraine, Georgia etc..) leaving it either to accept that and join west, or be in mercy of Chinese.
The only way that Russia can play time and maybe avoid all this is to have west not deploy any kind of missile defense. If west doesn't deploy missile defense, the Chinese don't any motivation to start building their own. Thought it should be pointed out also that Chinese have, even with out west building SDI, impetus to do something: either have enough nuclear war heads to challenge both west and Russia, or to disable the nuclear threat all together by building SDI.
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
The reasons why putin is so popular at home are simple: When he took office russia was bankrupt, people had lost all their savings, wages and rents were not paid. Since then wages have quadrupled, russia is not just defacto debt free(~debt is at 8 % of gdp), but has currency reserves of over 400 billion dollars plus a stabilization fund of 117 billion dollars. Capital influx reached allready 40 billion dollars jan-may.The economy grew by 7.9 % in the frist quarter. And this growth is now driven by demand, and not longer by the gas and oil sector. Oil and gas revenues now stay in the country, without putin russia would not profit from the high oil prices, all money would end up in western bank accounts like under jelzin. Even birth rates are rising. The so called "opposition" figures like berezovsky and kasparov have no backing in the russian population, they are seen as thieves and hated. Putin brought stability, and the state has regained control over the country, which was lost in 1999. If the politics of the nineties were continued, russia could not exist anymore. In fact, putin saved russia. The west allready believed it was dead, and expanded nato to it's borders and ignored russia's concerns. This time is now over, and the west should accept russia as an equal partner, because without russia most problems we face today can't be solved, and the russian economy is a huge market for western goods. Russia can help us in many spheres, but has also the capability to create giant troubles for the west. As an european i don't want to see a europe full of weapons. I don't believe we have the right to interfere with russia's internal affairs - everytime the west tries to enforce so called "democracy" another desaster happens, just look at afghanistan, iraq and the political crises in the ukraine. Putin is no angel, and he makes difficult decisions which might look bad to the west, but are right from a russian perspective. Russia suffered more than most countries(for example it lost more people than any other country in WWII), and it's no germany, it's much bigger, it has over 100 nationalities, and has/had problems you can not solve with a western style government, just look how difficult it is for an european government to make just the simplest reforms. It's time for the west to make concessions, to get russia back in our boat, we need it to fight terrorism, as a market, for resources, and to solve all other outstanding issues. Russia is pragmatic, you can have everything from them if you respect them, and in contrast to the us which wants to control the whole world, russia only wants a backyard without foreign troops to feel save. Russia is back.
Speaking as someone who's directly interested in this: the best you (Americans) can do (as a nation) is stop threatening Russia (with starvation or nukes) and normalize your relations with China while you're at it. No-one much minds that you're carrying a big stick, as long as you walk softly. Build missile defense if you so wish - on your own territory. Try to change mentalities and regimes if you so wish - but not by force of weapons. And finally, and most importantly, _bring_the_boys_back_home. The US military, as it is now deployed, seems ready to make war on the whole world. That is insane.
Take down the morons running America, get a new government that is strong enough to afford putting the leash on Israel, effect regime change in Iran (no, nuking Teheran does not count as regime change, yes, it is possible and has been done before, no, bringing back the Shah's cronies is also not an option) and re-instate the kind of policy that has kept NK in check for as long as Kim Ir Sen was in power. Better yet, give China carte blanche in NK - they'd like nothing more than to serve Kim Jong Il the traditional last cup o' tea, if only paranoid americans would not fear them more than they fear the Koreans. Those are the real nuclear threats, not the two paper-tiger ex-superpowers.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Sure, they can be hit with a small sized nuke. Haven't you heard of Bekaa Valley in Lebanon? That's Hezbollah country right there [http://www.cfr.org/publication/9516/ and an assortment of other terrorist camps.
This one of many reasons why we want you to get out of our soil (just as you don't want us sticking our nose in YOUR business which we will happily do once you stop putting the rest of us at risk).
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
Honestly, I don't get it. Both why Putin would make an ass out of himself like this, and why we need missile defense systems in Europe. But then again, I'm not a fan of the military of any country. I fail to see its utility, when the money involved could be put to better uses.
Still, sounds like more politicians trying to flex their muscles.
Ok, time for my weekly conspiracy theory:
Why did the Cuba crisis start? According to a recent Documentary on the Discovery Channel (Not the best of sources I know but this time it told the story from the Russian POV as well) it went something like this:
I don't think Putin & Co and Bush and his people. are trying to provoke a war any more than JFK and Khrushchev were. They simply are so entrenched in their respective preconceptions that GWB for example can't accurately assess what effect it will have to plant a missile defense system in Russia's back yard and that Russia has no effective answer to. I don't doubt that the Americans honestly intend this system mainly to defend against missile attacks from rogue states such as N-Korea and Iran, they would be insane if they really intended it to upset the MAD balance with Russia. But Putin & Co, who also seem to be unable to accurately assess US intentions for various reasons, see this as the first step in an attempt to create a situation where the US can nuke them but they can't respond so they have reacted in their own way which is to re-heat the cold war with new missiles. If the US and Russia continue to provoke each other the only thing it will achieve is to m
In my opinion, the US has made an ass out of itself by declaring a War on Terrorism that cannot be won (and is guaranteed to make things worse), and apparently I am no longer in the minority, according to recent polls.
- Prime Minister's office, Prime Minister speaking.
- Greetings, this is the Secretary of War at the State Department of the United States... We have a problem. The companies want something done about this sluggish world economic situation... Profits have been running more than a little thin lately and we, we need to stimulate some growth. Now we know there's an alarmingly high number of young people roaming around in your country with nothing to do but stir up trouble for the police and damage private property... Doesn't look like they'll ever get a job. It's about time we did something constructive with these people... We've got thousands of 'em here too... They're crawling all over. The companies think it's time we all sit down, have a serious get-together and start another war... The President? Oh he loves the idea! All those missiles streaming overhead, to and fro... Napalm... People running down the road, skin on fire... The Soviets seem up for it... The Kremlin's been itching for the real thing for years. They want a little going-away-present for mister Brijnev Hell, Afghanistan's no fun... So whadya say?... We don't even have to win this war. We just want to cut down on some of this excess population... Now look. Just start up a draft; draft as many of those people as you can. We'll call up every last youngster we can get our hands on, give 'em an hour or two to learn how to use an automatic riffle and send 'em on their way... El Salvador? How 'bout Northern Ireland? Or a "moderately repressive regime" in South America? We'll just cook up a good Soviet threat story in the Middle East - we need that oil... We had Libya all ready to go and Colonel Khadafy's hit squad didn't even show up. I tell ya... that man is unreliable. The Russian had their fingers on the button just like we did for that one... Now just think for a minute - we can make this war so big, so BIG. The more people we kill in this war, the more the economy will prosper... We can get rid of practically everybody on your dole queues if we plan this right. Take every loafer on welfare right off our computer rolls... Now don't worry about those demonstrators, just pump up your drug supply. So many people have hooked themselves on heroin and amphetamines since we took over, it's just like Vietnam. We had everybody so busy with LSD they never got too strong. It kept the war functioning just fine... It's easy. We've got our college kids so interested in beer they don't even care if we start manufacturing germ bombs again. Put a nuclear stockpile in their back yard, they wouldn't even know what it looked like... So how 'bout it? I mean, look - war is money. The arms manufacturers tell me unless we get our bomb factories up to full production the whole economy is going to collapse... The Soviets are in the same boat. We all agree the time has come for the big one, so whadya say?!?... We all agree the time as come for the Big One!
- It's marvelous!
- That's excellent. We knew you'd agree... The companies will be very pleased.
Dead Kennedys - 1987.
assuming the russians missles dont misfire, or blowup on the launcher, patriot and thaad will get the job done. we just need alot of missles.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Er, Mr President.
I'm mostly suprised this is happening post-Rumsfeld. I suppose there are more deranged dinosaurs than just one senile wrestler in the wrong place.
You should know your Marx better. Marx predicted that capitalism would develop into socialism /after/ affecting enourmos economic growth.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Frankly, this is so ridiculous, it's almost funny. Here we have a Russian politician threatening firstly the USA, then Western Europe with nuclear weapons if they install what is almost certainly going to be a big fat white elephant that would not stop an Iranian nuclear weapon in any case (because the Iranians would certainly not be dumb enough to actually launch one, thy would pass it on to Hezbollah or some other radical grouping who would use it in a suicide nuclear bombing).
Basically, I'm pissed off with almost all the "players" at the moment:
a)The Americans. The current US government, not content with fighting two insurgencies concurrently, one of which is almost certainly already lost and the other one looks ominously like it's going that way as well, is blindly carrying on with this utterly useless missile defence scheme in Poland and the Czech republic which the majority of the populations do not want, but whose governments have been bought by big promises from the same group of corrupt (Wolfowitz, Gonzales, Feith, Cheney, Bremer et al) incompetents who bled Iraq dry while promising the sun and the moon.
b)The Russians. While I can certainly understand Russians in general wanting a strong government after the chaos and national humiliation of the fall of the Soviet Union and the subsequent robbery by Oil thieves and chaos of drunk and corrupt politicians, Putin is still in his heart a KGB man who wants a return of Russian might and power and who is just too dumb too see that the only place threatening the Europeans will lead to will be a gradual and then rapid rearmament of Western Europe, with the majority of nations bending over even further for the protection of American weapons than was thought possible. The American, Russian and European Arms lobbies must be rubbing their hands in glee at the prospect of new satanically expensive weapons systems of questionable value for their respective clients. The slashdot weapon groupies will be loudly masturbating over these same toys as they dream of killing millions in their science fiction dreams of sexual impotence.
c)The Eastern Europeans. Just how far did these nations expect to be able to provoke the Russians before the Russians went ahead and drew a line in the sand? Do the Czechs and the Poles, both of whom are so fond of criticing Western Europe (but happily take its cash and forgetting that England and France went to war for Poland in 1939 and that the Americans did sweet fuck all in 1968 when the Russians reinvaded Czechoslovakia) for not being totally willing to support their Russian baiting think that the USA would risk nuclear war for them so that they could threaten the Russians? I mean, I know the Nazis and the Soviets killed off a lot of intelligent people there, but really, just how dumb are they? The EU will unhappily be pulled into this mess by these three fuckups playing very dangerous games.
The only people who really profit in this is the arms manufacturers. Think about that and look at the situation again.
So you (USA) and Israel (your masters) should stop screaming when Syria buys/installs the S-300 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S300 DEFENSIVE missiles system to it's borders to protect herself from incoming missiles, aircraft etc... After all, you have nothing to worry about, from DEFENSIVE missiles. Do you?
Well, the USA is perfectioning their Preemptive striking. You don't have to wait until they start now.
Yes, the war in Afghanistan sped up the collapse but it was already coasting on fumes by then.
If everyone didn't have to wait in freaking breadlines like me and my parents did. If we had normal living conditions, I don't think people would have minded the communists as much, but of course that is provided that human nature is different and / or there is an unlimited supply of funds.
Even if they didn't have to compete. Human nature would have done its job. People will stop working and throwing money in the common pot if they know that they can get all the public goodies like free healthcare (which wasn't bad at all by the way!), education and housing anyway. Eventually people will find ways to slide by and not put in their share of work. As soon as enough people realize this fact the system is headed for collapse. Yes Afghanistan and Cold War sped it up considerably but the system was rotting from within. My grandparent's generation after the war really believed in building a better future and look how much the Soviet system progressed in those years. As they started to retire and my parent's generation came around, the system was already headed for decline. And I was there to witness it...
It's obvious who the missiles are intended to intimidate, the Russians, just in case they try and steal our oil. It's straight out of the NeoCons plan for Pax Americana
o con-cold-war.html
A merican_Century
e t/The%20'Core'%20And%20The%20'Gap'.htm
The plan is for the Core to be safe while us here in the Gap will take the brunt of the war on whoever. Of course one of the unintended ironies of this 'war' is that in the course of defending 'democracy' at home, America is destroy it abroad.
http://cernigsnewshog.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-ne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/projects/newruless
davecb5620@gmail.com
It follows that a marxist system that is forced to compete with a capitalist one will eventually lose out in the finance end of things. It might be hoped that the marxist system would win out on freedom, fairness, general viability, etc., but we'll never know since the few that have tried quickly degenerated into some form of dictatorship that had neither of those qualities.
sigs are hazardous to your health
Send an army of robots shaped like catapillars that use wheels and gas as fuel and send them with lots of C4 down the pipe for 1000s of miles.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
And then you still have the freeloaders. They are satisfied with little and they're too lazy to bother working to get more luxuries for themselves(*). In practice, they're not too much of a problem and one might consider that if useless people like that were to actually get a job they would probably cause more problems than they solve anyway so they're doing society a favour by not making an effort
* - I simplify, of course.
sigs are hazardous to your health
How about "US threatens Putin with Missile Bases in Europe"?
Bush is an insane tyrant, a rogue regime that's turned everything it's touched into new danger. He dropped the ABM Treaty that Nixon had signed with the Soviets which kept the Cold War from spiraling out of control. Because Star Wars "missile defense" was the main Bush "defense" agenda: create as many missile threats as possible to "market" Star Wars to a terrorized American public.
Just as Bush didn't let the Qaeda's Afghanistan base of attacks stop him from invading Iraq instead, the foreign policy his cronies wanted despite the real world, Bush is roaring right ahead with Star Wars. He's goading Russia into a new nuke race because it's good for him, right according to their original plans that he never abandons. Just like Cheney tried to provoke an armageddon with China over Taiwan. Hell, even Bush Sr's plans for NASA to deliver Star Wars are now in full swing, with the old Star Wars hand Griffin running the show, and a new National Space Policy of militarizing space by NASA for the Pentagon and CIA.
These insane tyrants must be stopped. IMPEACH THEM NOW. Today. Before it's too late.
--
make install -not war
Missiles.
Things that make you go boom.
So why are they unable to shoot down, for example, planes? Or if they hit the ground, buildings or infrastructure?
And if they can do this, why are they ONLY defensive?
I remember the cold war, as does Putin, from the inside. Back then missiles had precoded targeting. What they have now can be targeted within 3 minutes. What he said amounts to absolutely nothing except a red cape for those with more bull than brains. Does anyone seriously think he'd take retargetable weapons and hard code them for specific targets, and so lose the flexibility gained? He doesn't. They've always had targeting data available, just as we have, and either could use them on very short notice to target or retarget. Think about it for a second: he says they'll target specific sites in response to our missile defense technology. That doesn't even make sense. If he were serious he have said nothing about it.
When you can't figure out why these erstwhile adults say and do things like this, just shrink them down to about the size of an 8 year old, and see if their behavior makes sense now. In a world of petulant children, politicians are among the most petulant and most childish. He's pitching a hissy fit. He lost his cool. He's mad because we ran them broke with Star Wars, and afterwards proceeded to keep working on it until at least part of it could be taken to testing. Bad testing with bad results, sure, but we're still working on it, and they're still broke.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
"Kept in check"? How about the indiscriminate abduction of innocent members of public from South Korea and Japan?
Well the real existing socialistic system actually profited from the free countries around them. Without any refence market the steering commities would have been even more clueless about which goods to prioritize over others etc. There is a compelling case to be made that this 'competion' with the free market actually allowed those 'economies' to exist longer than they could have on their own.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
If you're a russian expatriate, you might be interested in this little fact: right before WW2, there were a _lot_ of voices in the USA advocating _carpet-bombing_ the USSR with nukes preemptively. Just, you know, because they happen to be a _potential_ adversary.
What stopped them was when the USSR finally got their own nukes and you couldn't bomb them without getting bombed right back.
Just to put things into perspective: The USSR had until that point behaved like a pretty loyal ally. Sure, they had some different ideas about the economy, and securing their own sphere of influence, but by and large they were still grateful for the help in WW2. They stopped when they were told to stop, and stuff like that.
E.g., the reason why today there is a North Korea and a South Korea is because the USSR got asked by the allies to declare war on Japan after it's done with Germany. The USSR had little to gain there, but it honoured its treaty obligations. So it did take Manchuria from Japanese (dealing quite a bit of economic damage to Japan), and handed it over to China. And then proceeded to take Korea from Japan too. So the USA got a bit scared and asked Stalin to stop at the 38'th parallel. Noone actually expected that Stalin would actually stop at the 38'th parallel, but again, the guy actually did what his allies wanted, and actually stopped there.
E.g., a little known fact is that on 10 March 1952, Stalin actually proposed to let Germany reunite, if the result stays neutral (i.e., doesn't join either block.) It was the western powers that refused that.
Stalin was a bad guy, but in regards to the western powers he was _not_ at the moment the enemy. The USSR was in fact still by and large an ally of the USA, a member of the alliance that had just won WW2.
Even the later degrading into Cold War was slightly more a result of USA brinkmanship games than of USSR's doing any evil. The western capitalist world had gotten its panties in a knot at the idea of communism and became obsessed with opposing and thwarting the USSR at every step. The USSR was treated as the enemy, complete with violating their airspace daily, which helped deteriorate diplomatic relations very very fast.
I'm not saying that to defend Stalin or communism, I'm saying it to put it into perspective who did those guys want to nuke: an _ally_.
Without the USSR developping a counter-threat quickly, chances are you wouldn't even be here to brag about being a russian expatriate. Unless you immigrated some time in the 50's, you or your parents might well now be casualties in a statistic, because someone preemptively nuked Russia wholesale.
A missile shield turns all that right on its head. If the USA had a shield back then, it would have nuked Russia by now. The moment one side is immune to retaliation, it can threaten the other side with impunity, or even make good on those threats.
At any rate, maybe that little historical detail is why Putin is now getting his own underwear in a knot.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
While I don't think it's practical (or even possible, actually) to boot Russia from the G-8, your agenda is really not welcome.
We did not spend 50 years of Cold War to bend over and take it up the ass from whatever bat-form the commies have taken these days. So, as long as your kind are calling the shots in one major party, the other party will have a blank check to elect the worst possible candidate, just like 2000 and 2004.
Yesterday seemed to be one bit of bad news after another; we also had Prime Minister designate threatening to introduce even more so-called "anti-terror legislation" giving yet more powers of arbitrary searches, surveillance, arrest and detention without trial than Blair. What is it about government that 5 minutes with their hands on the levers of power that turns even the most reasonable civil rights activist into a raging authoritarians, and - dare I say - "fascists"? *shrug* Sharmi Chakrabarti for PM, that's what I say.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
Welll, why the hell are sellout europeans letting the USA build missile bases in europe anyway? Wishful thinking: Europe should get a decent nuclear/biological arsenal and wipe both idiot upstart sides off the map. (To former eastern bloc countries afraid of russia - let me say: you WILL end as badly off under the american imperial thumb, better not to negotiate with either side.)
I would also remind america that russia has always been formally part of europe, though a belligerent and annoying part. You guys haven't.
These are defensive weapons. They are not pointed at - but intended to bring down missiles pointed to Europe and the US.
The US BMD system - even if placed in an optimal position in Russia itself - would have absolutely no effect on a Russian attack even if it scored 100% against the attack.
The US knows this. The Russians know this.
Draw a great circle from central Iran to Washington DC. This path will not quite cross Poland - where the US wants to place their base - but coes damned close. Poland is a perfect place for such a base to counter an (admittedly somewhat vapourous) Iranian threat.
Russia justs needs an excuse to rile their citizens, rattle their rusty sbaers, and try to pretend like they are still a superpower (which they never actually really were).
So be it.
A better way to counter the threat is to just destroy any Iranian launch facilities now. God knows Bush is chomping at the bit for yet another oil war.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I completely agree... and I have to be honest, I support Putin. If it really is a missile defence system, then okay, fair enough, but no guarantee the US can give will be enough to convince me that they're not moving in nukes secretly. I also don't much fancy the idea of the US using Eastern Europe as any kind of launch base. Imagine if they were ever to fire those "defensive" missiles. How many red-phone calls would be needed to calm down the neighbouring countries? In order for the missiles to be launched effectively, then they would need to be launched pretty nearly immediately, and if I were Putin, I'd shit myself if I were called in the middle of the night by a security advisor telling me the US had just initiated a countdown in a facility within immediate striking distance from Moscow. Even if Bush rang up and assured me that it was a defensive launch against an Iranian missile, I'd move to a state of immediate readiness. Then, how do you think Bush would react getting a phone call saying "Sir, the entire Russian nuclear arsenal just switched to full readiness"? Before you know it, both countries would be battle-ready, and neither would be prepared to back down until the other did. I'm not a military strategist, but even so, I'm fairly confident of my assessment of the situation. Putin's doing all his posturing now to save himself a few sleepless nights later on. I genuinely think the US should back down on this one.
Now, it doesn't change the fundamental theory since we already know that marxism will burn out at some point. The question rather becomes how long a marxist system can last before it needs to temporarily revert to capitalism. This probably has to be at least one generation (more likely several) or else the constant transitions back and forth will just become too painful and disruptive. Seeing as communism burned out in ~70 years with competition (which we hypothesise to have helped prolong the life of its economic system), this would seem to suggest that a planned economy simply won't last long enough on its own for marxism to be a practicable economic system.
Still too few data points though - too bad it turns out to be so expensive to gather them
sigs are hazardous to your health
and are perfectly capable of being offensive weapons.
Besides that, what good is the threat of mutually assured destruction if one side can block the other's? The balance of power is then skewed, and anyone with too much power, even the venerable Americans, abuses their position.
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
> memes I remember when this hipster talk was called a concept.
Oh boy, this response is *TRUELY INSIGHTFUL*. My modpoints expired yesterday, I would have loved to spend them all on this entry alone.
I have worked for US companies for many years and have many friends there. None of them agree with the way their country is trying to bully the world into what Bush thinks the world should look like. Get this idiot out of the White House!
If only the next US president can get to the conclusion that there will always be countries that are ran in a different way. That have different cultures and different moral standards. Just agree to disagree on some points. Leave everyone in their value. Stop this nonsense and get those American soldier back to where they belong, in the USA!
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Do you think there is some truth that capitalism is closer to human nature? Capitalism is not "nice" but it does give people a sound reason to work, ie. survival and comfort.
It always seemed that true believers in communism were a small portion of the Russian popoulation, and even there many of them could not resist taking advantage of the guaranteed salary, health care etc (like you say). That minority of believers essentially used force to hold on to power until people accepted the status quo, as most of us do normally. Then the leadership decayed until they no longer had the heart to keep enforcing it. Reading about Gorbachev's changes, it was obvious he sincerely thought socialism could somehow encompass bits of free market thinking.
I also wondered if perhaps, once there was leadership which had entirely grown up under communism, and therefore assumed it was the right way and didn't need to be enforced - that they no longer had what it took to hold it together. One way to describe this would be that once the leadership honestly believed in socialism, it became impossible to maintain it.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
We could have nuked stalin in the early 50's, before they had the bomb, and didn't. (Probably would have saved Millions of Russian lives too. Stalin killed 20 million of his own people.)
Um, yeah. Except that Stalin's purges happened in the 1930's. Other than that minor detail, it's a good theory though.
I most certainly agree. Terrorism is an idea and a strategy, and you can't declare a war on it anymore than you can declare war on flanking. But I thought this long before the war in Iraq began (and still no one can tell me what, exactly, Iraq has to do with said "war.")
But to me, the idea that we would invade Russia is absolutely absurd. Maybe I'm naive? But, why would we ever want to? It feels even beyond the barely-there justification of Iraq.
>Build missile defense if you so wish - on your own territory.
I don't think you really get it. It's up to me as a Czech and our Polish brothers (and of course the Americans) whether we wish to have an American missle defense system installed - on our own territory. What they think about it in Moscow is as irrelevent as the opinion in Antananarivo. We are independent nations and it's up to us to decide what we do and with whom.
A military is needed to protect the civilian populations from situations like that occurring presently in northern Lebanon. The civilian population in the camp is suffering because no military was present to prevent an armed organization installing itself in it's midst. In an ideal world, no such forces would be present but as we do not live in an ideal world, we will always need armed forces to protect the sheep from the wolves.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Not by much and that was the problem. The only individuals who got plenty of luxuries were the members of the party and the government workers. No wonder by the time of Brejnev, the bureaucratic apparatus of the Soviet Union was large enough to run all the countries in the world. The people who worked harder and were professional would not be compensated proportionately. If they would have been, it would have created a situation of inequality. That would be totally incompatible with the 'everyone is equal' state policy. I admire the Scandinavian countries. Indeed, they seem to have found a golden middle between "let big corporations own everyone's lives" capitalism and Soviet's "submit to the state" system.
I believe it is very obvious that this has very little to do with the missile defense, and everything to do with politics. Putin ups the ante everytime he makes an official statement on this issue. It seems to be an attempt to exploit the growing skepticism towards usa, so that enough countries takes opposition and ultimately force the usa to stop/withdraw their defensive missile installations. And the aim is to portray russia as a potent international player. Just imagine how this will appear to anti-usa countries and movements around the world. Russia will be viewed upon as the nation that was able to strike a stark political blow against the usa in modern times.
Putin/Russia threatens with nuclear aggressive weapons, using footage of their latest nuclear delivery device on display for extra visual effect. A few defensive missiles is hardly enough to cause such a response. Radars is nothing new to either countries. Russia and putin understand very well that their approach to this is an overreaction and unjustified. Which i belive is evident in their own official statement, with emphasis on "we have done nothing, point finger at usa" wording included. They apologize for their behaviour, but want the attention off their actions.
I believe the worst scenario for the Russians is that the us and europe just dont take their statements and threats seriously. Putin has put his own reputation at stake in this matter. He wants international recognition, and this is an opening they have been looking for. And it goes in harmony with with what we have seen from Russia the last years. Putin has certainly been successfull in pushing events to their liking, when everything goes your way, you want more. It will be interesting to see how this progress. I expect him to raise the bar if the response he is looking for doesen't come. But I cannot imagine that some defensive missiles can be exploited to appear as the main reasoning for their aggressive behaviour in the long run.
You're forgetting something. If they can detect the launch of US defensive missiles then they would also be able to detect whether or not any additional missiles are in the air. Defensive missiles don't fire until an enemy missile is already in the air and en route. If Russia or China, etc etc, detected the launch of US missiles they should rather quickly know what is going on by noticing whether or not any enemy missiles are also in the air.
I love my sig.
http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/
How many of you folks actually remember this thing?
I'm of the same thought - the other guy's missile defense system is about a valid military as possible.
The missile-targeting issue is nearly-moot: it only takes what, a couple minutes to re-aim the missiles in the ground?
The larger issue is that Russia feels threatened by US armaments in its "backyard" for no apparent reason, just like we would feel threatened if Russia put an ABM system in Canada to "fight off the Mexicans". They don't buy Bush's line of "we're doing this to fight the terrorists". Sometimes it would be nice if politicians used Newspeak - "we view the ABM system as plusungood" instead of veiled threats. We need to work with these people, not stir up the anthill.
That said, I don't really care for the crackdown on liberties in Russia.
Considering the people in this thread that are claiming the northwest Europe isn't downrange from Iran, while using the European countries in between as proxies, I can't say I'm surprised to see someone slip a decade or two.
You know what? When Mexico goes nuclear with an eye on Venezuela, then your comparison will be more than bullshit.
I don't think they can be used as offensive weapons, but the mere fact that they could render (I seriously doubt that) offensive weapons useless is enough to create a dangerous unbalance on the MAD principle. If Russians have to throw 30 nukes to hit 10 targets and Americans throw, say, 12 to hit 10 targets, then, while not being offensive weapons, they are offensive enough. Keep it also in mind that, just like any proto-dictator, Putin needs an enemy for their country to hate and the US with its utterly terrible foreign policy seems to be perfect for it.
One good way to deal with it is to cooperate on the technology with the Russians, so they can build the defensive systems themselves.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Clearly the reader didn't live through the cold war. You'll know its cold war time again when each time you look at the horizon you wonder: 'Is today the day I'll see a mushroom cloud?' The Cold War was about REAL nuclear threats from REALLY big arsenals.
This is nothing more than politicians playing politics.
Error:
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Well, missiles are missiles. The purpose of missles is to go up, come down and explode. These are probably too light to carry a decent nuclear weapon with them (I honestly do not know the weight of a Hydrogen fusion bomb, let's leave those out of the equation for a while), but can still be used as strategic medium-range missiles, taking out some small targets.
:).
Whether they work or not is in this case not important. They merely have to pretend to work to throw the balance of power off. Uncertainty in the "assured" destruction ridicules the idea. Not to mention that the missiles can be upgraded at any time, without the risk of a new escalation. The scale of the missiles doesn't matter in this case, just that they are missiles. In exchange, Russia should be allowed to place missiles anywhere they want, but just imagine the political impact that would have
I seriously doubt the motives of the Americans behind these missiles as well. They benefit not from protecting Europe, they have shown in various ways (think environmental protection treaties here) not to care much for the rest of the world. The Americans must have a direct benefit from the placement of those missiles there. I just cannot see what it is yet, and probably we will not until it is too late do do anything about them.
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
Now this fucktard Bush has only about half a year to go, and he does his very best to rekindle the cold war.
Citizen, I don't think you have been paying attention. Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia. Oceania has always been allies with Eastasia...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
True... even so, I'd be loathe to dismiss any missile launch that close to me. A defense system in the UK for example, shouldn't bother the Russians, because it's far enough away that they'll have been tracking the missile already in the air, and have a reasonable idea where it's heading, and there's time to discuss it with the Americans without the immediate threat to national security that would be presented by an outpost practically on Russia's borders.
Also, (and my measurements aren't exact here, I just used a Goldfish cracker to compare distances on the map) a missile base in Poland is about the same distance from North Korea as a missile base in central Alaska.
Similarly, a missile base in Poland is about the same distance from China as a missile base in central Alaska.
From what I've heard about Alaska, it would be far easier to construct and man a missile base in Poland than in Alaska.
If there is someone with more time on their hands and more appropriate measuring tools than a quick google images search and a Goldfish cracker, I'd be very interested in seeing actual measurements.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I meant "kept in check" as in "prevented from developing nukes and buying IRBM tech".
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
These are all offered by the Scandinavian countries, and we tend to be doing quite well.
Yeah, but for how long? Are the scandinavians generally a decade or two or three into their socialized healthcare plans? Soviet Russia lasted 70 years. I wouldn't be so quick to call the scandanavian plan much better just yet.
Two or three generations in and then we'll see if it's got better staying power. I'm guessing from the plummeting birthrates of highly-socialized nations that the system will be in grave danger within two generations. Demographics is destiny, and with birthrates around 1.7-1.8 (summary from some google search) the system can't continue forever. You'll get too many old people who need healthcare, and not enough young people to pay for it in taxes or even provide the labor for it.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
Of course the US (and 1st world) won the Cold War. It was a war of attrition and the Soviet Union could not maintain that level of spending.
Sure the USSR would most likely have collapsed eventually if there had been no arms race, but it would've taken much longer.
"Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
Yes, fellow Eastern European. We should all be free to choose our masters, but riddle me this:
Do you feel better now, that your country is on the target list of Russian nukes, than you felt during the cold war (assuming you were alive and sentient back then), when you were a target for US and British nukes?
I can understand the depth of anti-russian sentiment in the former Eastern bloc. I actually feel all the same feelings, including the wish for historical revenge. Yet, I still think that policy decisions should not be based on hatred, but rather on cold examination of how they affect your chances as a people to survive and prosper.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Whilst I'm not going to be drawn on the conflict itself, it is quite funny that Slashdot tags this as 'politics, USA'. One would have thought Europe might feature somewhere... but then again I guess I'm not surprised.
It is going to be quite a difficult day for the US when they are overtaken in the economic race and the arms race. It will happen, but I'm not sure how it will cope...
Anyone else remembers the Simpsons' Nuclear submarine episode?
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
...Bay of Pigs?
Hopefully we this incident isn't anywhere near the level of that situation.
"Seven years of college down the drain. Might as well join the f-ing Peace Corps." - John 'Bluto' Blutarsky
Yeah, but you hit that area with a small nuke and there's bound to be a cat, dog, small child, or a playground in the area that will be hurt as well. The media would have a field day with how horrible the military is. Even if it did take out hundreds or thousands of militant radicals and only one kid (who will likely be raised in the same way.)
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
"...would force Moscow to target its weapons against Europe."
I am still trying to figure out how this is a Bad Thing (tm). Russia needs to take the European Bloc more seriously.
Bearded Dragon
sigs are hazardous to your health
The U.S missile defense system in Europe is there to destroy those few Russian nuclear missiles that might get into the air after a U.S. nuclear first strike.
The Turing test cuts both ways
Since the USA don't have many neighbours, imagine the following situation...
Some bad blood between Russia and Mexico
Russia convinced Mexico has WMDs and rockets to deliver them. (They don't have proof apart from fact that Mexico is building a nuclear reactor or two for power generation... )
Now - Russia ships a boatload or two of "strategic defence missiles" to Cuba so defend themselves against Mexico and their partners in the tortilla of evil.
Would complaints from the US government be valid, or just playing politics??
I think this would be a case of trying to say "all your base are belong to us"?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
That's the beauty of controlling the country's media. Instead of "Nuclear Bomb Aimed at Terrorists Kill xx Civilians" it's "Thousands of Terrorists Dead!" with some note about some minor casualties.
I traded all my mod points for these magic beans.
The system is capable of taking out missiles on the side, not just those that are overhead. What they can not do, is intercept against a missile that is fired at greater than a 90 angle (probably even less). IOW, it is designed to protect mostly Europe, but it does offer protection to NA from Iran (not a big deal for another 5-8 years) and some of China. I would guess that if these are accepted, then America will most likely put one up in either Canada or Alaska to offer North America protection from China, NK and a rogue missile or so from Russia.
Typical geography knowledge of an American.
Do you normally draw illogical inferences based on little to no knowledge? Or just resort to ad hominem attack? or should I consider this typical bigotry of a European based on lack of knowledge?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
the EU has more than enough economic might to not have to deal with this crap
.... until the gold runs out.
That is hilarious. Samarkand (a city state in Central Asia on the Silk Route) had tons of gold. Did that stop the Mongols from burning it to the ground in 1220 and enslaving the population? Nope, the gold only *attracted* attack because the Mongol Khan needed to pay his army. Putin needs to pay the people who keep him in power. Can you guess where he thinks he is going to get the gold? I'll give you guess, it starts with "E" and has its capital in Brussels.
Europe won't have to "deal with the crap" and "power plays over (your) head" when you can field an credible army and navy that has a credible will to fight so that other people are actually deterred by it. Until then, Europe will be dependent upon other world powers for its defense and subject to the whims, threats, and power plays of others.
Let me know how that economic might without an army is doing for you when the Mongols come thundering out of the east. Maybe they will only demand a gold ransom (i.e. make you pay higher prices for oil and natural gas). That might protect you
What fuck scored this one troll? He's right on the money!
Yeah, I can see it now. "Don't worry, all the missiles in this giant missile silo are for... ummm... defense, yeah defense, that's it."
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Well, actually they can't be retargeted or destroyed in flight, at least not to my knowledge. For any number of reasons, once they're out of the silo/launcher, they're un-recallable. (This is ballistic missiles; cruise missiles are probably different.) Basically they get all their data fed into them right before launch, and then the missile follows its path, using inertial (laser gyroscope, usually, I think) and stellar navigation (to correct for wind drift and other factors at apogee), to their targets. There's no communications channel by which to recall one, re-target it, or tell it to self-destruct.
Once you press the button, it's pretty much a done deal.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
We may have won the cold war, but failed to secure the peace.
Reality has a liberal bias
Is Putin retarded?
US: Because of the terrorists we need missile defense systems in Europe.
Russia: The US is putting missile defense systems in Europe; target Europe!
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
Um, because if we wanted to we could just place a few boomers in the barents, kara, and baltic seas and just nuke them that way. Be one hell of a lot cheaper.
Nice fantasy, though.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Maybe you will see the military as important when you are being shot in the face because some dictator in la la dictator land decides to invade your country. It is apart of human history that we fight. Yes I do agree that being able to spend the money supporting something else would be beneficial. But we still live in the dark times of human stupidity and having no military would be a death wish. Not everyone's emotions have caught up with their intelligence. This could take some time to accomplish
Because any truly serious threat against the norks will result in at the very least several million South Korean civvie casualties and the complete destruction of Seoul.
North Korea should join China. I imagine the Chinese government would stop this stupid never ending standoff between the north and south Koreas.
The North Korean people would probably be confused as to whether the Chinese communists are friends or enemies then and would hopefully avoid doing anything too crazy.
Dear Europe:
Don't deal with the USA... only cares about it self.
Yours truly,
Canada and Mexico
You mean like Costa Rica?
d -factbook/geos/cs.html
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-worl
(Ok, they're not completely without a military, but getting pretty close to it)
....just like any proto-dictator, Putin needs an enemy for their country to hate and the US with its utterly terrible foreign policy seems to be perfect for it. And GWB needs a new flashpoint to distract the US electorate from the mess he is making of everything else so in effect this is mutually beneficial situation. One good way to deal with it is to cooperate on the technology with the Russians, so they can build the defensive systems themselves. If anything the Russians are just as good at making air defense systems as the west. Their SAM systems in particular were considerably more effective throughout the cold war than western equivalents. The USAF and the Israelis learned that the really painful way and Russia still manages to produce pretty lethal SAM systems today even if one only judges by the shrieks the Israelis let out every time they sell some to countries to an Arab country. I don't think the Russians particularly need technological help to create their own missile defense system. At the moment it's more of a question of them not having enough money to build a star-wars project. The Russian economy may have recovered to the point where Russia can afford to build new strategic bombers and commit to much needed upgrades of it's air, ground and naval forces but it's still far away from being able to build a star-wars program.Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Must... crush... Capitalism!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFemUdYl88s
OK let's first understand that the missile defense system is NOT a weapon, it's a defense system. Think of it as a giant shield. Imagine if you're in a gun fight and everyone is grabbing bigger guns. Then one guy grabs a riot shield, do you act like he's attacking you? So why is Russia?
This is just Geopolitics 105 "acting like a baby to get cool shit". Russia acts like an asshole about this until someone agrees to give them the missile defense system and then they act like they didn't do anything wrong. This is just standard politics. The fact that Putin is acting like the US is a "bad guy" because they figured out how to create a missile defense system just makes me sick. The other insinuation that the US is forcing a global arms race is just silly. If anything we still need disarmament and the defensive weapons is a step in the right direction. To me it sounds like Russia is looking for a reason to reacquire the former soviet republic's lands and is thinking this is it.
The threat that isn't getting enough attention is the fact that Iran is talking similarly about Israeli (claiming in pseudo vague terms that Israeli is going to be destroyed, then claiming they meant they will be disappear and it was a mistranslation). But that's a discussion for another time.
you seem to have glossed over the 'population in the camp' part.
would you care to elaborate?
or is it to be accepted now that millions of displaced are permanent refugees?
i think in this case, the sheep and the wolves are one, fed up and frustrated by decades of neglect.
this was the inevitable outcome of the imposition of the modern state of israel on the middle east. commentators of the time knew it, but still it went ahead, and still there is conflict as a result.
the people in these camps are the displaced persons from the territories given to the modern state of israel ( by whom, and from whom is something i'll leave to the reader to discover), plus of course the refugees created when israel expanded during several wars in the ensuing years.
a military to protect these people?
please, it was the military of modern israel ( backed of course by USA) that lead to these people being in the permanent displaced state they are in, and it is the various state military that will keep them there for generations to come.
Societies seem to need a common enemy to unite against. Where there isn't an existing enemy there is always a need to conjour one up, it pacifies the population to an extent and restores national pride. Ideally the 'enemy' is one that won't fight back, because frankly a real war spanners it.
In the west we conjured up the GWOT, for a while the general population got behind the governments, national pride was restored and the defence industry had a field day. I would imagine the Russians are doing the same. By hyping up and vilifying the West, they will largely take peoples eyes off their domestic problems and help unite the population. I know a lot of Russians, most seem to want to to go back to the old days in some ways, they don't miss the purges but they do miss the national pride and less obvious corruption.
Regarding ABM's etc, the current ABM missiles are intended to take out a single incoming warhead, 50 or so ABM's will do jack shit against the Russian arsenal, if they wanted to blow up the planet. Even if the rockets had a 100% success rate that means they could stop at most 50 Warheads, assuming each ICBM has 5 warheads that is just 10 missiles that are countered. As for principle, well yes it must be a bit irritating - but Russia has its own (albeit obsolete) ABM system - they have about 60 or so 'Gazelle' missiles located around Moscow (iirc).
In summary: Russia has no intention of vaporising the West, they need us to beat their chest at. They know full well that M.A.D. makes a real nuclear war inconceivable, they may go up to the line but they will not cross it. Western politicians behind the scenes are probably breathing a sigh of relief - they have a new threat to hype, and one which they wont ever have to fight directly. Wouldn't want to be living in a neighbouring Baltic state right now though, as I can see the 'Bear' flexing its muscles before too long,and lets face it, the only western response will be that of harsh language.
Capitalism is grass-root and as such it stems directly from human nature. Communism is essentially just a reaction to capitalism-gone-bad, which was rampant until the beginning of the Cold War.
Ironically, the communists indirectly tamed and humanized capitalism in major capitalist countries but at the same time have shown in their own countries the futility of trying to stray to far from it.
However, it was just a temporary political measure.
Now the pendulum is swinging back and we all feel erosion and thinning of "middle-class" which is wrongly attributed to "globalisation" when in fact it is just a recovery from "red scare". No hope in revolution == no middle class necessary (too expensive!).
The scare of the day is unattractive religious fundamentalism which is too strange for most of the "working class citizens". Instead of bribing them, the government of today can use this new scare to push own citizens communist-style: just like Stalinists excused everything they did wrong with "Imperialists' menace", today capitalists' governments can push anything they wish by pulling "Terorists' menace".
In fact if you have read the forbes story, you should also compare it with3 9,00.html and the go on
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,20948
trying different sources of information. Make it hard on them to spread their lies.
What will be "the state of the nation",
the day Shrub is kicked out of office..
- middle east completely destabilized, with an iraq on the permanent brink of a civil war
- massive debt increase on the american taxpayer
- palestine far more worse than 5 years ago
- climate of distrust between russia an nato (usa) - decades of constructive diplomacy to strengthen
bilateral trust ruined.
- russia isolated and threatened from surrounding territories.
- cheney and friends got all the money
- defense spending as high as ever
- civil liberties almost gone (not only in usa, but also in consequence in many other
countries also - "war on terror")
- international treaties riduculed and reputation of united nations damaged.
- no evidency for any terrorist networks or the existence of phantoms like al-caida, ibn ladin
- again: cheney and friends got all the money..
- the us political system infested with neocon placed bots everywhere
some will remember what kennedy did when russia tried to plant
missiles on cuba - right in the face of the usa, and: the consequences this little encounter
almost had. now, will there be a "poland crisis"? And would this help the neocons?
Yet he's changed his tune about that recently. It goes to show that in many countries, including Russia, foreign policy is often merely theater for domestic consumption. Europe shouldn't be concerned by this rhetoric.
I think it's hard quantify or measure anything in this regard because the economic system was not isolated but rather intimately tied in with politics (internal and external), societal issues and culture (yes, culture too, one could argue that Chinese culture of uniformity is better suited to communism than the American culture of individualism, but it's hard to say which gives rise to which of course).
In other words one would have to create some kind of computer model that would account for human behavior (averaged) but will be immune to other variables (Cold War, Chernobyl etc.) to see if the communism could sustain itself. In this model it will be important to consider 'what preceded communism' or what did people overthrow and establish communism instead. After so many peasants were fed up with the Czarist rule they were very willing to work for a 'bright communist future'.
After WWII again, people saw Nazism and in contrast they were very happy to build up their country, and communism seemed like a great idea. However, just one generation after WWII (my parents' generation: born in 1945-1955) people started to realize that they could take advantage of the common goods and produce less than they would consume. This stemmed from the artificial idea of "equality for all" , which on the other hand meant "no matter how hard you work, you won't get to own a Mercedes ..ever => might as well not work very hard". As soon as that starts happening the system will start to disintegrate. A large country like ex Soviet Union will coast for quite bit (20 or more years perhaps) but eventually it will self implode.
I usually go into this explanation every time Americans boast they they 'beat' the Soviet in the Cold War. I argue that they didn't even have to do anything and the Soviet Union would have self-destroyed eventually.
That usually is the case. A government that has enough resources (i.e. is not dirt poor) will monitor birth rates and will provide adequate incentives to either encourage or discourage population growth. There is something "strange" about this as it makes people into goods/commodities. The country needs more so they "ramp up the production", if the country needs less they "will pull back" (pun intended! ;-). But sometimes, because of other constraints (such as resources or territory, there will have to be a choice of allowing more births or saving resources and have an older population). Two extreme cases are probably China and Japan. Both in Asia. China promotes a policy of reducing birth rates and Japan grows increasingly old (but I am not sure it is really trying to increase birth rates...).
Well, unlike Russia's America's presence and influence are, actually, beneficial. Even when achieved by questionable means. Compare, for example, the developments in Chile (US-supported dictatorship) vs. Cuba (USSR-supported dictatorship). Chile is the Latin America's top economy, while Cuba is the very lowest. Or compare the USSR-supported North with the US-supported South Koreas... Or look at how the US-assisted Western Europe recovered after WW2 and then consider the USSR-controlled Eastern Europe (including Eastern Germany!)
These are just the most obvious cases...
Every culture wants its presence felt (just listen to all the noise the French are making). But America's empire is the benevolent one — and the "way of life" it (strongly) suggests is the one of prosperity and comfort. And not necessarily due to the benevolence of all Americans — simply because for us to prosper, it is better to have prosperous (and peaceful!) neighbors. And we are willing to shove that prosperity and peacefulness down a throat or two...
Russians, on the other hand, just want an empire for the sake of empire — yes, we have huge rates of alcoholism, our population is declining, our former subjects all hate us, AIDS is rising, natural resources are our only sources of currency. But we are citizens of a Great Empire, you see, and that is somehow comforting on its own...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
"it's kinda hard to hit "terr'ists" with WMDs"
Well it's no harder than declaring an unwinnable war on an intangilbe object...
Why don't they just cut to the chase and declare the great "War on Evil"??
"But this one goes to 11!"
True but they are protected by the Inter American Mutual Assistance Treaty. Someone is covering their asses. If someone tried to invade them or otherwise push them around, someone else would step in, and they know it.
There isn't a country on the planet that isn't defended by some military force, implicitly or explicitly.
What are you smoking?! I don't know what propaganda you have been reading, but Europe most certainly isn't a fat pig waiting for slaughter, it has real military muscle. You might want to read more about from Wikipedia under Military of European Union. In there you can see how much money is spend by member countries on their defense, and there is also a chart showing you how much money combined is spent in Europe compared to US, Russia and China. When EU members are spending over 250 billion dollars on their defense, half of US defense budget and quadruple to China and Russia, EU is for certain not a fat pig waiting for slaughter.
Also you really don't seem to understand how vital good economic base is to modern warfare. When we talk about economics we speak about country's industrial ability to produce war material and equipment and it's ability to finance the production. Now at peace time EU member countries are spending in average 1-2% of their GDP to defense, if there would be credible threat against well being of Europe, the defense budgets would immediately jump in par with US which is spending 4-5% of it's GDP to it's defense. So in layman's terms, what the economic base allows is massive production of Eurofigters and Leopards to defend Europe.
On a note UK and France in combination have 550 nuclear weapons which of course compared to US and Russia isn't much, but still represents a credible threat. It may not be enough to oblitariate US or Russia but it would for certain level down most of their infrastructure.
Maybe next time when you start speaking about Europe and it's defense, you should first look on facts and see that Europe isn't anymore just booty divided by US and Russia, but an independent world power in formation. In Europe many still remember all the horrible things of second world war and all the pain and suffering that was caused in the war, and thus see that Europe should not engage to wars in general and especially not build empires. What Europe is doing is building itself and spreading peace and prosperity to it's neighbours and other countries by increasing international trade and exchange and influencing governments of other countries by means of dialogue and diplomacy. Even though Europe nowadays seems more like house cat that just wants comfort for itself and others, it doesn't mean that it couldn't defend itself. Is it so horrible that one of the power houses of world chooses not to engage in world domination and empire building?
Survey research tool for commercial and scientific use
In the extreme event of a cold-war era array of forces, China wouldn't be happy--nobody sane would be happy. A very few particularly greedy and manipulative politicians and businessmen might be happy, but even that's dubious. The cold war nearly resulted in the effective destruction of humanity. Several times. *nobody* wants to return to a diplomatic and military polarization that means once every five or ten years, the entire world is nearly destroyed. Because if that keeps happening, we'll all die.
The exception being the few people who gain extreme amounts of power and wealth from such a state of affairs--and even they don't want the world actually destroyed, generally speaking. US Foreign Aid, for example, goes up tremendously during a cold war type era, as we bribe countries to support our cause; so there are a lot of corrupt dictators out there who enjoy the cold war from that point of view. And there are also poor people who benefit from that, in some of the countries in question.
My impression is that Putin & co are using the US for Fear-mongering propaganda purposes, clearly beyond any US intention of being militarily hostile towards Russia. Or at least, likely beyond it--I wouldn't be surprised if there were *some* thought being given to the possibility of intervening or muscle-flexing in the event of an aggressive move by the Russian military against one of the Newly Independent States between Russia and Western Europe. Though I don't see why such a conflict would go nuclear.
"The decision to close Russia's largest military outpost abroad was announced in October by President Putin who said it was too expensive to maintain."
That came from YOUR link. How are you arguing this point when the link YOU posted states the same thing I said?
"Russia announced last October that it was abandoning the base for financial reasons."
Perhaps you can explain to me why you feel able to argue this point when BOTH of your links say I'm right?
Putin does not care about the missiles. This is not about Iranian missiles. It is a rather good scam by the US that is not gonna fly.
The reason the US wants that installation is for the radars involved. The reason Putin is pissed is because these radars right in his own back yard will make it possible for the US to implement a boost phase strike on his outgoing ICBMs.
It screws the balance wildly and Putin will do what he has to to prevent this. Targeting the installation is a sure thing.
ce putin de Putin! :-D
By that logic the existence of any military anywhere means that someone/everyone is being "protected" by the military.
I think Nixon did that in the 1970's.
The US military can't even successfully make war on a small Middle Eastern country.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Even USA isn't committed to the so called Western values with the running of Guantanamo and open use of torture and kidnapping by CIA. Yes, US laws stil allow CIA to hire and use torture through places like Uzbekistan, Guantanamo is still open for business and water torture as per usual and Bush, Cheney and Gonzales are still running free. USA is forcing countries to give it's troops immunity against International Criminal Courts and even boasts of it's accomplishments at strongarming other countries' governments in this regard.
If Western Values are what make G7 or G8, then both USA and Russia should be kicked out.
The Suez Crisis right? You didn't? My bad, I guess the whole fucking world doesn't revolve around whatever pissant country you think is important...
Generally cruise missiles are easier to intercept, given that they are approximately small aircraft.
They can be intercepted by SAM or better, the usual interception fighters.
Ballistic missiles, especially long range ones, come down stupendously fast, from the top of the troposphere
to ground level in four or five seconds.
Of course cruise missiles fly very low and are very difficult to intercept---but ballistic missiles are harder still (nearly impossible).
But low-observable (stealth) cruise missiles would be very hard to track and are much cheaper than ballistic missiles---using aircraft technology instead of rocket technology.
It's not a bad idea, there's a fair chance that the radiactive fallout will land on Israel, after all. Surely it's worth sacrificing a few Hezbollah fighters to kill a shitload of Israelis? Hezbollah would certainly think so.
The real beauty of it is that the Lebanese will die in an instant, but the Israelis will die in great pain after decades of suffering.
My favorite part about this is what if there is a specific site they want to attack now, instead of being able to send in a surgical strike they have to launch all their missiles because its an act of chance how many get through.
Instead of we're really pissed lets nuke a city it becomes we're really pissed but if we launch one and they intercept it they won't be scared anymore and they'll attack so we better send 300 nukes just to make sure we remind them how much this nuclear war thing sucks.
I think there was once a country that took that attitude. But you've probably never heard of it because it existed for like, what, 10 minutes?
Actually, that country was called the United States of America, from 1783 to 1791 we had no standing army, but the federalists made short work of what was a beautiful experiment. The idea that amatuer state militias could defend a country effectively without the need for a standing army. In fact until the 20th century american wars were predominantly fought by volunteer state militias.
No guy, you just got your ass handed to you and now you're trying to save a little face.
GP slapped you like you were his ex-girlfriend and the best you could do was to accuse him of twisting the argument.
He's right, you Euros are morons.
No, that is THE reason. How hard is it to admit you're wrong?
Because it makes so much sense to say "we can't afford them" as opposed to "for purposes of good will, we are closing them down".
One makes you look weak and inept, the other gains you international good will. Yet you think they CHOSE to look weak and inept. Sure buddy.
I knew you'd try that, and it makes no sense whatsoever.
Now as to whether they actually could defend themselves, I also doubt that. Once the shooting starts, a war in Europe would likely be a "come as you are" affair and not a protracted conflict allowing a build up. Preparation would be paramount. Right now, the Russian Army is probably inferior to the combined EU forces (although its doubtful there is such a thing as reliably "combined" EU forces). If Russia were to build up its forces (which it looks like it is going to do), will the EU also increase to maintain superiority? Is the EU prepared to spend a greater portion of its GDP on defense, when it is already close to bankrupt from social spending? Probably not because the people would riot in the streets if social spending were cut to fund defense. So I doubt the EU will be in a position to defend itself when the time comes
The Russians don't need to conquer you outright, they only need to intimidate you into submission. When Russia rattles its saber, Europe's response will likely be to "negotiate" tribute and "achieve peace in our time".
To make this a little less insane, let's hypothesize a bit.
If Russia puts its missile defense systems on Cuban soil, will the US target those installations (and Cuba along with them, as a collateral)? There's no question in my mind that they would. It's a simple logic, there's no room for political play or negotiation. Missile defense systems are deployed with the intention of using them one day.
You're the one who thinks spending pennies for labor while making fistfulls of money is somehow bad, and somehow makes the products less American.
"Can't argue with what you said, but because it's not an argument,"
You're right, it's a farce, and an obvious attempt to find something to dig the US over.
Let me let you in on something. If I own a company, and you WORK for me, what you make FOR MY COMPANY doesn't magically become yours. Yet you think it does, but I'm the one who is "ignorant"...
Get over your US hatred guy (and don't bother denying it) it makes you post nonsense.
United States Position: We want to build a way to defend ourselves and our "friends" from being attacked by some rogue states.
Russia Position: We don't want you protecting your civilians from our missles and we want to build new offensive weapons to defeat your defensive weapons so we can kill whoever we want.
If Russia wants to maintain a balance of power then they should join in on the USA's efforts and try to build a global missle defense shield that makes all airborne threats, regardless of who they're from, obsolete....then eveybody is on a level playing field.
First of all it's Central Europe, the very geographic center of Europe is just outside Ledec in the Czech Republic and second I do not seek any sort of revenge against russians who themselves were a victim of the vile soviet regime, quite to the contrary I wish them all the best and would love to see russia transformed into a democratic and prosperous modern European country. I was born in the late 1970s so most of what I remember of communism is simply empty store shelves, people standing in lines for hours and the everyday humiliation but luckily was spared the mass svoiet terror which was already receding. And yes, I do feel a lot better being a potential target for russian nukes then I would have felt during the cold war when there were soviet tanks on the streets here.
That's not my logic. For a place to be protected (or "defended", if that is a better word), there has to be the assumption that said military would attempt to prevent by force another entity from invading or occupying the region.
I guess your point is that in some cases "protection" could be more accurately labeled "occupation", and while that's true, my point remains. A place that is not defended will soon be invaded, settled, absorbed or occupied by someone who is going to defend it.
Rogue State.
Thanks in advance.
The US had just won a war (with a lot of help from France, who did have a standing army), so there was certainly an implicit threat to anyone who decided to set up camp here against the wishes of the new government, or against the wishes of France for that matter.
Regardless, back then volunteer militias could be pretty effective. These days they can't. Do you seriously think that if we had nothing but volunteer militias, that we wouldn't be subject to German or Japanese or whoever ruling us now?
People have, from the dawn of time, liked to expand their influence into other lands, whether or not it is against the wishes of the inhabitants of those lands. Not advocating it, just saying it is still a reality, and any place today that wants its independence from (militarily backed) others must have a military themselves. The reason why is pretty obvious if you study a bit of Darwin.
Okay, I'll take a crack at it:
1) EADS wants some contract money, and the EU wants to dole out gov't contract money to new member states; this missile defense system fits the bill.
2) Putin longs for the days when Russia was relevant, and he finally has some oil money to play with now that he's bought back some oligarch assets
3) Putin uses the missile defense system as an excuse to frame global politics in the only way he knows how: cold war missile defense grandstanding, and points his missiles at Europe to stroke his cold war ego.
It's all rather pathetic -- almost like a movie script modeled after the "let's get the gang back together again," theme like the original Ocean's Eleven or the Sting
Regardless, back then volunteer militias could be pretty effective. These days they can't. Do you seriously think that if we had nothing but volunteer militias, that we wouldn't be subject to German or Japanese or whoever ruling us now?
I think a volunteer militia in a free society is far more effective than a standing army. Especially if the people have access to military small arms. Japan rejected a west coast invasion of the US during WW2 as too dangerous because they believed that the American citizenry was too well armed. What it comes down to is that people who are defending their homes and who are patriotic about their government will destroy a large standing army through attrition. The French military didn't defeat the Germans, but the french resistance did(with allied help of course).
Do you honestly believe that the German military could control all of America and europe for an extended period of time. Not possible. The populations of those countries would not have allowed it and resistance movements organized by volunteers would have eventually driven them out.
For another example of how smaller volunteer forces are more effective than large standing armies, look at how Finland was able to neutralize the threat of the soviet union during WW2. They were eventually compelled to surrender but the spirited fight they put up during the winter war is extremely eye opening and calls the conventional wisdom that large standing armies are the only means of defense into question.
And I would also like to ask: why can't they be effective today?
The insurgents of Iraq are pretty effective, and they are all volunteers.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Anti-missile system is what is truly needed for Europe, so that long range missiles can be intercepted in Turkey or Greece instead of hitting Austria or Germany or Italy.
But it is not completely unreasonable to want nukes that can hit Iran given their current stance on nuclear weapons. Or would you rather France became a target next time they mistreat Muslims and Iran decides to retaliate? (not that they can hit France with their current missile technology, give it 10 years and they might)
Russia is nearly irrelevant, and Putin does these things to draw attention to himself politically. Partly it's an ego thing, but mostly it is a political maneuver. It is well known that American leaders create some terrible "enemy" to drum up support for their election and leadership, does it surprise you that Putin would use the same tactics?
It will be used as leverage for trade and export regulations between Russia and the EU. Russia might be able to get higher prices on natural gas and oil from Europe, and break some of the regulation-based monopolies that exist in the EU. Even the US views the EU has a trade threat (or to put it in a nicer term: a rival), and a far smaller percentage of the US's trade is through the EU compared to Russia. Russia's economy is highly dependent on trade with the EU, and europe has has highly regulated markets, so nations that trade with them are on the whim of the regulators.
the EU has been better in a way because it standardized the regulations between many European nations, but that also puts everyone on a level playing field with Germany and France. so it was not so good for them, at least in the short term.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You also forgot that Russia fell apart in the late 1980's and early 90's. If Russia HAD put nukes in Cuba who do you think would be in control of the nukes now? The high and mighty Fidel Castro that all the libs and Hollywood scum (Michael Moore's) seem to worship.
Why waste your missles on a target that can blow them up in mid air? They need to target a country that can't stop the missles from hitting the ground. Like australia.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Their tactical mistake was accepting this.
Our tactical success was in opposing reciprocation.
It may be moot anyway.
Wasn't it ultimately revealed that Cuba had the capacity to launch attacks on the USSR anyway?
Personally, I view this as a waste of money. In fact, I would rather see us pour this money into laser systems; ABL AND space based. Of course, the space based is just as prohibited as is this folly, but I doubt that it would stop a person like W. and Cheney.
But I'm not convinced that they would be driven out quickly at all, if ever. Most likely they would just become "the government" after a while.
Remember, most countries that exist today used to be lots of separate independent states. Those that didn't defend their independence got abosrbed into a bigger entitity. Effective at.....what exactly? Raining misery on others? And that's somehow a good thing? Thanks, but having something comparable to Iraqi insurgents pretecting my interests doesn't sound like something I want.
That may be true sometimes, but only if the invaders want to rule their new subjects, as opposed to ruthlessly killing off the natives and taking their land. The Jews completely wiped out the city of Jericho during their exodus from Egypt; consequently, they never afterwards had to deal with resistance from that city. No people left means no resistance. See the Book of Joshua in the Old Testament (and the Torah).
So in the extreme case of a genocidal invader, you emphatically do need a modern army to defend yourself.
Okay, I don't call myself liberal, but where in the nine hells did you get the idea that Fidel Castro is liked by ANY chunk of America? Where on Earth did you come up with that factoid? Everyone I know, on all sides of the spectrum, are waiting for him to kick the bucket. So, how can you make such a bold claim?
You are in violation of the Conservation of Nostalgia act of 2002. As you may know, we are rapidly running out of past to be nostalgic about. We all fondly remember the days when we were nostalgic about things that happened ten years or more ago. Nowadays, we are frequently nostalgic for things that happened a year or two ago. At this rate, we will run out of past before 2012. Your blatant use of the word retro in a context referring to an original posted only hours ago is a blatant violation of the act, and represents a serious squandering of the past that all American share.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
> right before WW2, there were a _lot_ of voices in the USA advocating _carpet-bombing_ the USSR with nukes preemptively
FYI, nukes were not available before WW2.
3.243F6A8885A308D313
Threatening to nuke Europe over the deployment of an ABM system that a lot of people don't even think works....
Wow, that's a great way to make friends!
This is my sig.
Are Slashdot readers mainly from the bible-belt? All this patriotic blind moronic words against the a Russian President, who -as those who read the transcript might have learned- can express himself properly and coherently, demonstrates deep understanding of politics and history reminds me of hillbillies and shotguns.
Whatever makes you think anything your babbling baboon clown of a president says might remotely have anything to do with reality? Christian programmers are a paradox.
HAD
You, and many others, seem to misunderstand what I said. The "it" in my post refers to this "missile defense system," not the army.
I do not LIKE armies, but I do understand their necessity in this day and age.
Of course, this leads to problems when the dictator trying to shoot you is the one who CONTROLS the army, and got to power by other means (not trying to say that's happening now, but just a theoretical situation).
But I'd also like to point out, I'm in America. Who in their right mind would invade us? I'm not saying because we're better than them, or we're unbeatable or some other patriotic garbage, but from a military standpoint, how do you quickly conquer a country an ocean away from most other first world nations and so incredibly wide that you would not be stopped quickly? Even if it did happen, see the scale of America. The odds of my area in particular of being invaded is particularly low.
Again, this is not a cry of "get rid of the armies," I'm just saying I'm not particularly worried about being killed by a foreign invasion.
A rather brief and broad but fair synopsis (seeing as how the GP was moderated 5 I fail to see how your reply could possibly be offtopic except to someone who values conformity of opinion over analysis; although you might consider conforming enough to use capitals). If the reader would like to discover more, the related overarching topic to research is "military industrial congressional complex" which helps explain much of the U.S. governments' world policies -- though much of the explanation occurs, like the underrated P, in alternative rather than mainstream media.
Just look into who's been supplying Saddam, North Korea, Iran, and any other nation in conflict with the US: Russia.
Additionally, Putin has ordered journalists to portray the "United States as the enemy" (NY Times)
... articulate and well formed arguments, maybe even in paragraph form. Not a list of repetitive, mind-numbing sentences. That would be slashdot values.
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story
Well, that was a most unfortunate fuck-up indeed. I sorta started with "before the cold war" and switched to "after WW2" in mid-flight, and brain-farts happen.
I will however assume that most people do have the mental power to read more than one line. In which case they'd notice I'm talking about events that happened in the late 40's and early 50's, and which are background info to the "let's bomb the russians" banner-waving. Hence the events I'm talking about can't happen earlier than the 50's, right?
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
If you like Russia then you like space war
If you hate Russia then you hate space war
George Bush Junior is furious because his Antimissile Balistic Missiles don't work. Bad bussiness for George Bush Junior!
I like much Russia!
I'm benchmarking the speed & reliability of the missiles, Russia is better than USofA.
The USofA's missiles don't work well, they work bad and hang 2 by each 3.
This is a picture of a typical drunk Russian (photographed in Ukraine):l .jpg
http://gorod.dp.ua/photo/2007/c/chelovek/02/Zasnu
Any questions?
You never try to kill Fidel Castro for 70 years, since 1937.
In 1937, United States of America was a weird society in comparison with today.
United States of America is still a cobard country that can not kill Cuba as Irak because there are Russians in Cuba with their vacancies.
I understand the globalization of the marketplace and the diversity of world resources, but I really think it's about time to go back to the pre-1920's political notion of moderate cocooning.
We have so many internal problems to deal with now, and we seem to be overstretching ourselves abroad. Maybe it's time for a mostly closed-door policy.
I'm not suggesting we lock the door and throw away the key, but if we spent half the money that we spend on the military on actually trying to fix domestic issues, we and the rest of the world would be in a better place.
What happened to "Speak softly and carry a big stick?" We should keep to ourselves and if an actual, real threat arises, deal with it via the almighty buck and diplomacy. A smaller military could easily provide defense for the country, security abroad and a force to deal with real (as opposed to imagined) military threats.
Everybody will scream 9/11 here, but who will attack us (other than TerroristsTM) if we butt-out for a little while? Even still, cleaning out the caves in Afghanistan did far more good than the objective-less war in Iraq. The Iranians, despite being rather radical are not stupid people. They know that they can make threats all they want with little recourse. They also have to know that America and the European Union have the ability to absolutely erase them from the map if challenged militarily.
I suspect that Mr. Putin is seeking another arms-race in order to revitalize his economy, help his friends make a buck and attempt to keep America in check.
If I were him, I'd be worried about American-influenced security in the Middle East too. He's a lot closer to it, and has more to lose (extensive trade between Russia and the ME).
Sure, King George II only has a limited amount of time left in office, but after yesterday's debate, the Dems look as or more clueless than even he. I'm sure the GOP debate tomorrow will also fail to inspire confidence as well.
Putin is not dumb, although I disagree with his policies. If Khruschev didn't swing first, Putin won't either. Hell, Russia is nearly broke, very corrupt, and has sold off much of their military hardware. The only threat they can make is nukes.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Of course the US military can successfully make war on a small Middle Eastern country. The US just forgot what making war really was. It is not running a heavily armed police force. The actual war part went fairly well, but that was the easy part.
-a
You could, but it would bring down a whole lot of bad mojo when you did... Take for example Islamic Fanaticism. A couple of megatons in the Makah-Madinah area, and you'd wipe out a HUGE chunk of the symbology right there - or wipe out Madinah and threaten Makah... and see how fast the faithful will turn against the extremists amongst them to save what's left. (Before anyone screams - this is actually a tactic straight out of the 13th Century, with every flaw and problem that arises from it, so I wouldn't really recommend actually doing it).
But then, you'd have about a billion very pissed-off Muslims wanting a good hard piece of your arse carved and served on a platter, too...
As for the latter half of your comment, I kind of agree - the EU's GDP is big enough for them to defend themselves. The US has no further business (at this time) with having any serious military presence there. Let Brussels build their own army and save us taxpayers over here some dough.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
It scared the hell out of the Soviets, who scrambled back to the bargaining table after we deployed the Pershing II in Germany.
There's apparently been a blank check there for a while now, where were you when we were voting? Probably complaining about lack of options. Further, who are you to say whose agenda is or is not welcome? Your view is no more important or relevant than any other here.
Has anybody told that to the US commanders in Iraq?
"Volunteer militias" may not be able to preserve your government in the face of a foreign invasion, but they can certainly make the invaders wish they'd never heard of the place, and (eventually) retire with their metaphorical tail between their legs.
If you really want a defensive military, the important thing is to make it clear to any potential invader that the costs would far outweigh the benefits. To do that, the simplest way would be (a) to abolish the navy and air force entirely, and (b) train the army exclusively and intensively in terrorism, infiltration and guerrilla tactics.
I live in capital of Czech Republic. Very close to where US base is supposed to be. Hopefully, US Army can't build anything without our permission. There were already referendums held in 5 towns that are the most close to the place of planned base. Here are the results: Town of Hvozdany (about 3 miles far): 95% of people AGAINST the base. Town of Tene (5 miles): 98% AGAINST Town of Zajecov: 98.3% AGAINST Town of Trokavec: 99% AGAINST Town of Skorice: 99% AGAINST (only one vote for) Go find out what "demo" and "cracy" stand for.
Ago 45 years, J.F.Kennedy of the United States of America failed his unsuccessful invasion Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion in 1961 by the won Fidel Castro.
Invasion, ehhh?
After, his CIA did plans to kill to the president of the Cuba country with paid criminals because of his unsuccessful invasion.
Cuba is not United States of America.
The Guantanamo beach is your, but the Pigs beach is not your.
The USA country was harassing & embarrasing to Cuba country more than 45 years after many presidents re-elected.
Want you to send paid false & criminal ex-cuban exiles to do an "invasion made by US"?
.
You are more evil than the Satan devil.
Distractions, distractions, distractions. . .
Many here seem rather involved in these hokey Risk board game dramatics.
The real story is that both sides are being heavily manipulated toward an end which has nothing to do with human interests.
Who put all those crop circles there, and what is the source of all those thousands of UFO sightings? --Not a couple of jokers with wooden planks and the planet Venus on the horizon. Human national dramas are nothing but stage dressing; it's like debating which meat rendering plant is more progressive. There's a much larger show going on, and those who rest in the comfort zones of armchair politics are going to be washed away.
Dear Russia, dear Putin, ...
Why not install many RS-24 based ABM anti-missile ballistic missiles in Cuba and Mexico that are not from NATO?
You can transport many lightweight weapons as many silver bullets instead platinum bullets.
Mexicans are inmigrants, Cubans are inmigrants to. But the difference is in here are exile-cubans and are not exile-mexicans.
Why not invade Mexico because of inmigrants?
You know... There is a very good reason for the acronym to be MAD. I don't think the people involved in coining it would have any difficulty to find a completely innocent combination of letters.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
when.. then.. if maybe.
my statements holds true now.
Dont Judge The situation by the Misfortunate. Goga.
yu tell em man. america gonna go down!
Canada.
We have had international observers observe some of our elections to learn how it can be done. Our first-past-the-post system is inherently flawed; there is no political accountability outside of the elections themselves; political patronage runs rampant; and there have been a few cases of spectacular gerrymandering; but the voting system itself is fast, efficient and fair.
This has got to be the dumbest, most contradictory /. post I've read in awhile, and evidence that an education does not invoke intelligence.
"That's exactly the kind of escalation mentality that brought us the Cold War."
To which you gladly participate in now. Apparently, threatening an entire continent is NOT an escalation, but kicking someone out of the G8 is.
"Russia is NOT threatening Eastern Europe with nuclear annihilation."
BULL. SHIT. Putin directly spoke to this issue. He advocated openly and publicly that not removing the defense shield would mean retargetting of EU sites. When asked for clarification, he defined this as US military bases and OTHER sites.
Plus, how stupid are you--do you honestly believe a nuclear aka multiple warhead FUSION bombs is going to have a limited impact over a military target?
"Speaking as someone who's directly interested in this:"
So you don't want the US folks to tell you what to do, but you want to tell "us" what to do. Hypocrite.
"the best you (Americans) can do (as a nation) is stop threatening Russia (with starvation or nukes)"
Huh? You may have an (ill-conceived, erroneous) argument with the nuke thing. But we are now also responsible for feeding Russia? We do that to reduce tensions, and now it's considered an OBLIGATION? Damn...so not only is the US reponsible for policing the world (or not), and curing all diseases in the world, it doesn't stop there--we are also responsible for feeding the world, and it's our fault if a country can't feed it's people to the point that it's a threat if we pull in OUR food stores.
Little wonder the US takes at least some action when things don't go its way.
"and normalize your relations with China while you're at it."
As they say, with friends like these, who needs enemies.
I've got a better idea. How about we withdraw our shields, our military bases, our food, our economic support and alliances, and watch what happens to the EU.
And again, if you can tell us what to do, we sure as hell can tell you and others what to do too.
"Putin simply cannot afford that US military types begin to believe they could "win" a nuclear exchange because that would threaten the very existence of Russia."
Basic cold war understanding--no one wins a nuclear war.
Basic cold war understanding--even fallout sucks (we knew this during the cold war, see star wars).
Basic cold war understanding--the US could invade Russia in a typical non-nuclear and likely win.
Basic cold war understanding--The US doesn't want to invade Russia. There is NO upside. We'd incur huge, heavy losses. The only upside would be oil and gas, to which we could easily obtain conquering some African, Middle East (Iraq is hardly included despite people like yourself playing it up), or South American country. We don't want to, we don't care to, we simply want to buy the shit.
"Build missile defense if you so wish - on your own territory."
Double standard again. Who the hell are you to dictate what the Czechs or Polish choose to do? Isn't that the same as what Russia is now doing, did in the past, and what you claim the US is doing?
Frankly speaking, the Czechs and Polish want us there, because it was Russia and THEIR DIRECT ACTIONS IN THE RECENT PAST where they were abused. Hell, you are so stupid you don't see that Russia flat out FAILED the basic test of letting their former satellite/hostage nations decide their own matters. So much so you blame the US.
Which frankly speaks to the crux of your post--the US can do no right.
After all, if we don't put up a defense shield there, we lose the progress those countries have made. Under US and EU help.
We go there, and it's our fault when Russia saber rattles and aims missiles at THE ENTIRETY OF THE EU.
I'm starting to think you're just nuts:
If a country asks for our help and we give it, that's not speaking or walking softly.
Because the poster is obviously ignoring Iraq.
Germany attacked Russia, that is why it was involved in WWII.
And no, I am not supporting US policy there at all. I wish we'd keep to ourself and not go invading other countries. I just think the idea that our country could exist without a military is absurd. It would simply be taken over by someone either within or from elsewhere that had the force to back them up.
In any case, are you advocating this? This would be your preference to live in a world where the "peace" was kept by terrorism?
When US deploys missiles [targetting Russia] in Europe, it is for peace. But when Russia deploys its anti-missile missiles towards those missiles which threaten Rodina, Russia is a warmonger.
Am very surprised.
On one hand, we have a Toxic Texan who is power hungry, mad and as stupid as Stalin was, and still thinks Saddam planned 9/11.
On the other hand we have an extremely intelligent, former KGB spook, infant who is flush with New Money and thinks the toxic texan is an aberration.
GREAT ! We have the same Stalin/Hitler combo in 2007.
Now lets wait for someone to launch the initial attack.
Am putting my funds into Bonds.
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
For the uninitiated, I point out that the numerous opinions expressed by cyberax are identical to the positions offered by the Kremlin. Coincidence? You make the call.
If he were sincere, he'd respond in kind: with a defensive arms race involving anti-ICBM systems.
The guy is an old KGB leader who probably misses the comfort of the cold war. He's now also a politician if we assume the elections are legit, so he also likes winning points for standing up against the USA.
Lovely game to play, huh?
Mark those words. After some years of cooperation, and disarray in the East, tensions are increasing again. The US seems to have alienated once more many parts of the world, and Russia appears newly emboldened. Scary times, though I think every nuclear power is smart enough to keep its ICBMs in the silos, for now and the near future.
Strained Washington-Moscow relations are certainly not helping to calm the rest of the world. North Korea is still a wannabe threat, while China is something of a wild card who needs continued international trade but has aspirations of being the dominant superpower. All of this lingers in the back of my mind, with the weak dollar worrying more, at least for now.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
I've talked to groups of people who wax philosophic about the joy of Castro, the fantastic medical services there, and how the US just hates him cuz he's such a swell fellow. So, yes, there are people in the US who'd like nothing better than to collect his castoff cigars and plate them in bronze.
I'm praying these people you met were at an insane asylum/idiots convention/*insert another place for crazy people* because a dictator is a dictator. Or maybe they're just a few examples of the EXTREME left.
Installing military equipment next to another country's border is an aggressive action - in this case the US is acting aggressively. After all - what would we think if China would start installing missile defense sysstems in Mexico, Cuba and Canada?
This isn't the forum to go into the causes of the presence of the camps which I purposely glossed over to avoid going OT.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
I just had a quick look at the world map, and yes, it seems perfectly obvious to me that the Evil(tm) Iranian Empire is poised to launch a surprise human wave attack on Poland any day now.
....
It is essential that in the name of Freedom(tm), we must draw a line in the sand and defend the sovereignty of Poland, just like previous generations did in 1939.
Putting missiles in Eastern Europe makes perfect sense
If I may interject, allow me to suggest that Finland is not a typical EU country, and that attitudes in your country are not common to other EU countries. Finland is a relatively homogenous country, with memories of the "Winter War" and WWII fighting against the USSR, and a decent economy. Other EU countries have large populations of immigrants (will they want to fight?), moribund economies, and their memories often hinder military expansion. Thinking of "EU countries' attitude towards the military", I can't help but think of the Danish politician who suggested replacing his country's armed forces which speakers shouting "we surrender". Also, I'd point out the Russia has much finer grained ways to squeeze Europe regarding energy, than to simply cut off energy supply.
You bloodthirsty fucking murderer. Before you make such suggestions again, why don't you try to envision yourself walking up to said kid and slicing his neck with a knife? Same end result, only you won't be so comfortably distant.
Effective at.....what exactly? Raining misery on others?
Isn't it obvious? Our massive standing army is being driven out through attrition. The insurgents don't have to win organized large scale battles in order to make US citizens at home demand that we leave the country. You also need to look at what others they are raining misery on, Iraqi's might not agree with you that the insurgents are terrorists raining misery on people
And that's somehow a good thing? Thanks, but having something comparable to Iraqi insurgents pretecting my interests doesn't sound like something I want.
Now your just being stupid. You CAN look at the methods of an enemy force and say "wow thats effective" without supporting the cause. And why should'nt we learn from how they are fighting against us? To say that the lesson is worthless because they are "evil" is just foolish and pig headed.
"First of all it's Central Europe, the very geographic center of Europe is just outside Ledec in the Czech Republic"
That makes you special how?
"I do not seek any sort of revenge against russians"
The tone of your previous post and the fact that it expresses your support for a policy which is overtly aggressive towards Russia would seem to imply otherwise.
"would love to see russia transformed into a democratic and prosperous modern European country"
So would I. Keep dreaming, something may come out of it in the end.
"And yes, I do feel a lot better being a potential target for russian nukes then I would have felt during the cold war when there were soviet tanks on the streets here."
No comments.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
First question: Why do we need a missile defence system in north eastern Europe anyway unless there is something unknown to the general public? Second: Ok we put a missile defence system in... SO WHAT? Russia, what do you have to worry about. Third (ok three ways) Ok so you are targeting our defence system... SO WHAT? Two politicians with big heads and probably small... well you know.
"To which you gladly participate in now. Apparently, threatening an entire continent is NOT an escalation, but kicking someone out of the G8 is."
The anti-missile missile bases are a military threat to Russia. It was met with an equal and opposite reaction. Now, the US has three options:
1. escalate (push for the exclusion of russia from G8, announce future deployment of IRBM's in Poland, whatever)
2. stand down (withdraw the missiles, obviously)
3. Stop.
Only option 2 brings us (as in, the world) back to the same tension level as before the deployment was announced.
"Plus, how stupid are you--do you honestly believe a nuclear aka multiple warhead FUSION bombs is going to have a limited impact over a military target?"
Never said that, or anything of the kind. Straw man.
"if we don't put up a defense shield there, we lose the progress those countries have made"
How so?
"Frankly speaking, the Czechs and Polish want us there, because it was Russia and THEIR DIRECT ACTIONS IN THE RECENT PAST where they were abused."
What actions? What remains, if that is true, of US claims that the missiles are there to protect EU and CONUS from Iranian and North Korean launches? You are contradicting yourself.
"Can you name a single Islamic country that has done this from within in the modern age?"
Turkey, Egipt, Palestine, Lybia, Syria... shall I go on?
"Which led to starvation, a DMZ, a nuclear weapons program gone bad...umm, yeah."
The DMZ is there ever since the Korean war. This sentence of yours pretty much shows how much you know about NK.
"You think the US is putting a roadblock to China invading NK? Are you mad?"
There is even a treaty provision (afaicr) saying that Chinese troops crossing into NK is a big no-no.
"using some stupid NK v. UK conflict."
huh? when did the UK come into play?
"The real threats are Iran and NK. "
You are restating my claims as if they somehow validate yours.
To sum this up: you are ignorant, abusive, narrow-minded and yet... not much of a troll. You failed at being the dregs of the Internet. I should go hide under a rock if I were you.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
"On April 24, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 63-man U.S. patrol that was sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry succeeded in routing the patrol, killing 11 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair, after the slain U.S. officer who was in command. A few survivors escaped and returned to Fort Brown."
Before this, the only "aggression" was political maneuvering, and claiming it was The US who instigated it is factually incorrect and revisionist. Both sides engaged in said maneuvering, with no real claim of being "right" available to either.
Then you have attacks and deaths, perpetrated by the Mexicans. If you're going to claim one side is the "aggressor" when it was the other side who attacked them, you need an entirely new definition of "aggressor".
But happily, that's not necessary as you're just wrong.
"I'm talking about licensing/buying/ordering software and hardware components and patents from companies which HQ and origin is not American."
Then you're a bigger imbecile than you appear. This DOES NOT happen in any significant quantity. I understand now why you were wrong.
Based on your post and 2 days of consideration, I have verified to 100% certainty that you're too stupid to discuss this subject.
But I'd also like to point out, I'm in America. Who in their right mind would invade us? //the swedes
We say we come in peace and offer trinkets^h^h^h furniture you have to assemble yourself for trade. Before you know it you'll be eating meatballs with lingonberries at dinner.