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.'"
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.
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.
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."
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
There's large doubts to if they'd work at all.
Works great! A lot of money is transfered (well it is "spent") and nobody really questions the whole thing because it is to much money.
Nothing happens without a reason and a benefit for somebody. So - who benefits?
I mean, is there any doubt that normal, simple people actually could get along? Well, maybe no more, after being bombed and shot into pieces. Which also helps.
Maybe at one point it gets so bad that enough people really have had it. In USA with that news media - can take a long time.....
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
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.
FYI: the Cuban missile crisis was also caused by "the Americans playing crazy dangerous games with missiles". The placement of USSR's missiles in Cuba was a response to the US placing missiles in Turkey (with a comparable range to USSR's border to that of Cuba to USA's). Of course the US follows a different set of rules from everyone else and so while it claimed to be putting up missiles essentially on USSR's border for "defense", the USSR was not entitled to the same "defensive" distance for theirs. And the rest is history. Note that despite of all the posturing, the US missiles were eventually removed from Turkey (semi-secretly).
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.)
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?
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!
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
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Please inform me what drug you're smoking. The EU is dependant on Russian oil and USA's demand for imports. It is in no position to complain, even assuming it's members could have a united foriegn policy.
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.
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
Blah blah sig blah blah blah irony blah blah
Dear Anonymous Coward, I for one come from this "bitch" country You mentioned. Sorry for not being kind, but Finnland is all about being kind about Russia all the time. Isn't it that You were just sitting quiet, happy You are on the right side of the wall, after II WW? Where have You been when Russia put nuclear arsenal in Poland 35 Years ago? If Poland is America's bitch, whose bitch is Finnland then?
And for Your information, we are not sure if we agree having this shield in Our country just like Czech. We just don't want to 3-rd countries like Russia decide what we should do.
lima
- 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.
The Russian argument is that, although the US might claim that the defences are intended solely for use against Iranian missiles, they could have a role against Russia's own missiles which would destabilise the existing balance of power. The radar system is also capable of observing activity inside Russian airspace. Of course, the US will claim that they wouldn't use it like that, but there are many threads on /. which point out that, if a system can be abused, then at some point it will. US actions around the globe can appear to some to be expansionist and bullying. Now a lot of this is Russian rhetoric - i.e. 'they would say that, wouldn't they?' but with the US recently withdrawing from at least one treaty with Russia, with its current propensity of using force to resolve issues that could, and should, be resolved diplomatically and with Western forces having established a significant presence on many of Russia's borders, you should at least try to consider the situation from their point of view. No, I don't think that they are correct, but I can understand how they might feel.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
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
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.
Oh, puhlease... You may accept information from slashdot/wired/other as gospel, but some of us think for ourselves.
Wired's analysis is so flawed as to be completely useless. The Wired "report" stated that "we see attacks coming from around the world, so the cyber attack is not coming from Russia". Given that we know that the DDOS attack was botnet generated and that botnets are a global problem, of course the attacks were coming from everywhere! The only way to clearly determine where the attacsk were coming from would be to have the logs of the control channels of the botnets used in the DDOS & determine who set them on this DDOS attack.
There may be no concrete trail of evidence leading to the kremlin, yet there is no evidence that clears them either.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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.
Western values? like supporting dictatorships in Chile, central America countries, Greece, Pakistan etc?
Western values like allowing friend countries to invade and occupy foreign countries (Turkey over Cyprus) while doing the exact opposite thing with non-friend countries?
Western values like increasing the price of imported goods from Africa in order to protect domestic production?
Western values like economically supporting all the 'orange' revolutions in former soviet union countries in order to get the geopolitical advantage?
Western values like dismantling Yugoslavia because the southern part has the largest deposits of a rare metal which USA wants for replacing enhanced uranium in its weapons?
Western values like lying about WMDs in Iraq?
Western values like taking the culture of one country and arbitrarily assign it to another (yeap, I am talking about the so called country of 'Macedonia', one of the biggest thefts of cultural identity in history) ?
Western values like giving money under the table to enemies of Chaves so as that he is overthrown, even if he is legally elected?
Western values like illegally giving money to Israel under the table, as well as advanced technology that no other one has?
Western values like don't doing anything about Israel's 200 nuclear warheads, even when they openly admit it?
Western values like privatizing everything and leaving over 60 million americans in the mercy of god, without medical insurance and health care? and with private health care companies sucking everything out of their clients?
Western values like banks increasing their profits 500% each year while the average payment of an american employee has remained almost the same in the last 30 years?
Western values like stealing ancient artifacts from all around the globe and displaying them in your museums?
Western values like changing the borders of other countries (for example in the Balkans) so as you can divide and conquer, while in Africa there are thousands of slaughtered people every day in Sudan, yet you say 'it's not your problem'??? (as Angela Merkel told us a few days ago)...
Western values like not destroying the drug factories and plantations of south America, even if you have accurately mapped all the globe with your satellites?
Western values like not doing anything for the environment because it will hurt your wallet?
What western values are you talking about? all your values were invented somewhere else, and you might not know it, but almost all your habits and things you use daily come from other countries that you bash as 'non-western'. Your clothing habbits probably come from Europe. Your food from Europe and Latin America. Your language comes from Europe. Your political system comes from Europe. Your music comes from Africa. Your religion comes from Middle East. Your sports come from Europe and the Far East. The foundations of your technology come from West Germany, where almost all top scientists came to USA before and after WWII.
Get a grip on reality. The battle between USA and Russia is far from over, because Russia got the biggest natural energy resources, and USA is scared to death about Europe depending on Russia for its energy needs. That about sums it up, really.
What on earth makes you think the neo-cons have suddenly started telling the truth?
Have you not noticed that the US are building "shields" in the Pacific and have them planned for the eastern edge of the the EU?
Miss the fact that an invasion of Iraq puts a large chunk of the US military slap in the middle of the chess board...err...middle east?
Ooooo and then there are little details like Pakistan, a few decades back they were a stone age soviet ally, now they're a nuclear armed US ally on the door-step of the Caspian sea. NATO stomping around Afghanistan looking to kill the people who the CIA trained and supplied to kick the soviets out (OBL/Taliban).
OTOH: Ten anti-missle misslies (by themselves) are certainly not a realistic defense against Russia (not even enogh to stop Isreal) but I'm sure they will be very effective at stopping Iranian WMD's that only the neo-cons can find.
Speaking of Iran reminds me of another "supreme council", do you think that maybe the veto holders in the UNSC are stll fighting each other in proxy wars just as they have done since the end of WWII? Has the underlying "competition" for ever dwindling resources somehow been solved or have the peices just moved around on the "chess board"?
Meditate and discuss: The real moral behind the story of Adam and Eve is: Don't let anyone spoonfeed you apple-pie.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
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.
>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.
Expansionist Russia vs expansionist USA... which do we believe, or disbelieve? Is USA really the "good guys" as they would claim?
After WWII Russia clearly was expansionist - Stalin used the oppportunity to seize lots of countries. But that was 60 years ago under a pyschopath. Then again, the initial assumption of the Bolsheviks was that they WOULD need to force worldwide revolution. But the hard core of Bolsheviks rapidly dissappeared too.
USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense, but we can see they do like to make their influence felt strongly. In particular they want to trade on their terms and they want to be able to land their military in your country if they feel the need. And lately, there seems to be a much stronger push to force "little USAs" even if people don't actually want them. An assumption of moral superiority.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
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.
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
he weapons are being placed in those countries because the cold war has had a bit of resurgence lately
You realize that a Russian ICBM aimed at the United States wouldn't be within range of any interceptors in Eastern Europe anyway, right? It would likely come in over the pole. That's why we put all of our early warning systems in the Canadian wilderness back in the day.
Aside from that, I'd be pretty sure that Moscow is already targeting most of Europe anyway
Officially nobody is targeting anybody. In reality you can target a modern ICBM with a few keystrokes once the orders come down. But who cares anyway? This is just sabre-rattling. And given the choice between stateless terrorists flying their airplanes into our buildings and the classical game of brinkmanship between nation states I'll take the Cold War any day.
It's about time for a new Rocky movie, isn't it? ;)
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The Cuban Missile Crisis is what that post was about, I assume. It is a stupid comparison to make since that was over 40yrs ago and during a period when we almost blew the shit out of each other and "ended the world." By the way, another BIG difference is that the Russians were doing this in "secret." They actually did a pretty good job of getting missiles in place and setup before the US even knew they were there. I think the GP should really read up on history before trying to compare anti-ballistic missiles and radar in Poland in 2007 to nuclear warheads in Cuba in 1962.
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb."
FWIW, Catholic vs. Protestant is not even what the conflict is about. It happens that the nationalists (those who want union with the republic of ireland) are majority nominally roman catholic and the unionists (those who want to remain part of the british nation) are majority nominally protestant, but the conflict is territorial, not religious. Several of the leaders of the nationalist movement that eventually caused most of Ireland to leave the united kingdom were in fact protestant (including many rich protestant landowners in the south of the country who got fed up paying taxes to the brits).
It's funny how so many territorial disputes are painted as religious disputes in the american media - Israel vs. Palestaine, Ireland vs. Britain, China vs. Tibet. Americans, get this through your skulls: it's not about religion. Most people, anywhere, don't give a damn about religion anymore (america is regarded as a relative hotbed of fundamentalism by europeans!)
Point One: Who defines defensive? Missile Shield == missiles. Russian missiles == missiles. Defensive defines how they are used, not what they are.
An interceptor missile that can only be used to shoot down an ICBM or a RV (reentry vehicle) is a defensive weapon by nature. Do you really think that a kinetic kill vehicle can wipe out a city?
Point Two: You, and the rest of the US are terrified of the Iranian boogeyman
So is Europe, apparently, because they have largely supported our efforts in this area. Indeed, they were leading the effort against the Iranian nuclear program for quite awhile. Russia (and China to a lesser extent) are the ones throwing up roadblocks.
Those of us in Europe, caught between two monolithic, stupid, agressive, violent and unreasonable powers are beginning to wonder why we need either of you.
Those of you in Europe wonder why you need the United States and/or Russia? Maybe because those of you in Europe couldn't stop Hitler yourselves? Blame the French and the British. If they could have handled him then maybe the US and Russia would never have been involved in Europe.
Perhaps you should be more worried about the EU turning round and atomic-bitchslapping you both - because that is, overwhelmingly, what the population seems to want right now, regardless of whther that's a good strategic choice.
The EU doesn't have the means to "atomic-bitchslap" the United States or Russia. The EU could hurt either country very badly but would be utterly wiped out in return. And that seems like an awful lot of posturing to be making when the EU can't even agree on internal trade quotas or policies. And a lot of Europeans I've met seem to think that the EU is nothing more then a means for Paris and Berlin to dominate Europe and they are less then happy to be a part of it.
Fuck You, Fuck the US, Fuck Russia, and get the fuck out of our countries you arrogant pricks.
Kind of ironic since you are posting on an American website. I bet you are even using American software on your computer. Oh, and your apartment is probably heated with natural gas from Russia ;) But, by all means, let's isolate the EU from the US and Russia. I bet you'd fall upon yourselves within a matter of decades.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
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.
Nice fantasy, though.
Far from it, its likely you already know this but just in case, the Cuban missile crisis arose because the installations in Cuba were not a defensive system, they were R-12 Dvina medium range missiles carrying mega-ton class nuclear warheads. The proximity of the installations presented a first strike capability with little to no warning for US civil defense plans and the objective of such a system is not defense but to kill as many U.S. civilians as possible if and when they decided to use the system.
Comparing the installation of an anti-missile defense system to a first strike attack installation is hardly grounds for a double standard arguement. If anyone should be concerned it is the Europeans as the fallout from any overhead anti-missile strike is likely to be above them.
....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
You're joking right? Ill hand it to the Brits for holding out but they could not get a boot onto the continant soil without the help of the US. Hitler being stupid enough to engage Russia did not hurt either. If the US and/or Russia did not become involved the *best* outcome for Europe is England suing for piece, and Vici France pretending to be a real nation.
" Now consider Germany who got subdued when Russia, USA, England and France ganged up on them. What about when France, Germany and England gangs up on somebody else?"
History is always fun to look at but its quite unlikely that Europe in a militarily offensive conflict could take the US or Russia, let alone both.
Was it decisive? Yeah, actually, it was. Is the Nazi party in control of Germany? No. Are the Fascists in charge of Italy? No. Is the military in control of Japan? No. Looks like we're three for three.
Please read about the Second World War. About how Soviet attacked Finland, and the 10-to-1 kill ratio. That was the reason that the United States intervened, as someone else showed that the Red Army was not so good as it appeared. If you do not understand the scale of that accomplishment, pretend that Florida is a country you need to invade, and you fail at it.
Actually, the US was quite anti-Soviet during the Soviet-Finnish invasion, in part because of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, which divided Eastern Europe between Hitler and Stalin. The country which royally got screwed in all of this was Finland because they dared to fight our "allies" after Hitler double-crossed Stalin and supported Finnish resistance against the Soviet military. By the way, how did France and Britain do against the Soviets during that war? Oh, that's right - they did nothing. Outstanding. In fact, if memory serves, France ended up collapsing faster than they did against the Prussians in the Franco-Prussian War and the British led the greatest amphibious evacuation of an area in Dunkirk - being in the record books for the biggest retreat is not something to be proud of, y'know.
Now consider Germany who got subdued when Russia, USA, England and France ganged up on them. What about when France, Germany and England gangs up on somebody else?
Oh, you mean like in Bosnia and Kosovo, where the Europeans let a nice little genocide proceed before the US finally decided it was time to show up? Or how about Rwanda, where the French openly supported the bad guys? Of the three countries you just listed, England is the only one to actually win a war within recent memory, and that was against Argentina. Also, France did distressingly little in World War II, at least in any organized sense. They certainly didn't do any more than the Polish or any of the other Nazi-occupied countries did against their occupiers. Read up on the Polish resistance some time - they contributed more troops than every country in the war, save for the Soviets, Americans, and the British.
Look, don't get me wrong - I'm not a flag-waving pro-USA kind of guy here, but you guys need to get honest with yourselves here. Your population is declining, you have a bunch of Muslim immigrants that you don't know what to do with, and a welfare state that you guys love to hate but can't bring yourselves to kill off before it completely chokes your economies. Fix your own problems, then talk to us about ours. We'll be busy talking about our own problems here since, well, shoot, we're Americans - we don't care about your problems or the problems of anyone else in the world unless they become our problems, right?
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.
Those defensive missiles could be considered offensive weapons.
I understand that. But the fact of the matter is that they are in a useless location in terms of defending against any Russian ICBMs launched at the United States. The fact of the matter is that Russia can easily overwhelm any defense system we can put up with current technology. Barring a new arms race this isn't likely to change any time soon.
The only reason the USA could justify an ABM system pointed at Iran would be the Iranian leaders being insane
The leader of one country calling for another country to be "wiped off the map" doesn't give you pause?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm sure all of you would have been perfectly content to rebuild your continent without American aid too, eh?
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Expansionist Russia vs expansionist USA... which do we believe, or disbelieve? Is USA really the "good guys" as they would claim?
If you look at things in a different light, you might see the world as eventually coming together. No longer separate nations, but one global economy, one currency, one government. But long before then, there will be struggles for power in the economic area, political area, military, human rights, resources, etc.
The US has the upper hand in many areas but they need to keep that upper hand, and they aren't going to be able to do it by becoming Fortress America. Military bases in the Middle East (moreso, the fear incited by our attacks there), expansion of global industry and commerce (outsourcing, international companies, etc), making sure we don't "follow" (see Kyoto, etc) and that we're always seen as a leader.
It's difficult to see a road where the US and its beliefs/policies that we're used to are premier in the world without us throwing our weight around. Call us expansionist, imperialist, whatever...we're trying to stay on top.
I suppose the big question is: Do we want the US and its beliefs/policies to be on top? Many of them, I'd say yes to...but power corrupts and we may end up being genocidal to accomplish our goals and that's not something I believe in.
Doesn't evil ultimately destroy itself? ;)
That's a myth spread by Hollywood movies. For most of the world's history, the majority of people lived under a government much more evil than the current American one, in societies where science and art had all but ground to a halt and the vast majority of people were not in the slightest bit free. And up to the end of WWII or maybe even the Cold War it was quite likely that all of the world's population would end up living under one, forever.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
> USA has never really been expanisionist in the same sense
Yes, expanding freedom, however badly being flubbed at the moment, is akin to expanding totalitarian dictatorship.
Seems like you have three choices: US Style, Soviet Style, or Islamic Style. Pick one. WHOA!!! EVERYBODY STOP RUNNIN' IN MY DIRECTION!
Hyperbole is nice -- you didn't actually expect us to LIVE anywhere else than US Style, did you?
I await downmodding by people upset at the US who would never go to Russia or an Islamic country to live in any case.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
To answer your big question, there's a core of american values that is shared by many cultures that I strongly believe I want to see on top and dominant in the world. But I do not see our current american society really sticking to this core anymore. So I guess I don't really have an answer to the question.
Like what I said? You might like my music
This bit of leftist mythos is a pet peeve for me, probably because it had me fooled for awhile. That "democratically elected leader" was a Communist, and, in the manner of all Communists who come to power by election, promptly set about destroying the democratic institutions that brought him to power. At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, even Hitler was duly & democratically elected chancellor by the Reichstag. Does that mean Eisenhower should have stopped at the Rhine?
What are you talking about? You're going back to 1973 for Pinochet in Chile. He's dead, for Christ's sake. Chile has had a deomocratic government for ~18 years.
Central American countries? Who? I don't think anyone would believe that the Contra affair was a swell idea, but there's no "dictatorship" there. Guatemala? The coup there was in 1954: Carter cut off military aid in 1979.
Pakistan? Musharaff is an asshat, but would you have us do? Depose him? There's not much choice but to deal with him. And holy Jesus, can you imagine the cries of "interference" if we did depose him? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. We've put pressure on him, and I think he is finding out that being a dictatorial asshat can be hard work: his attempt to remove the Supreme Court Justice will hopefully moderate his stupidity.
Let's talk about Russia, then. Chechnya? Kazakhstan? Ukraine? Georgia? Cyberwarfare over a fucking war memorial? Assassinations on foreign soil. Destroying Yukos through "taxes". Putting potential political opponents in jail (Khodorkovsky, if not more). Assassinating journalists critical of the administration. Seeking extradition of others (Berezovsky) for completely bullshit reasons?
Oh, yeah, totally we should have stopped that. Everyone loves us when we interfere. Hey, is it the United States or France that wants to (or could) keep Turkey out of the EU (god forbid all those poor Muslims get freedom of movement)?
Yes, you're absolutely right. No one except the United States has protections on agriculture. Not the Europeans, not the Japanese, no one except the United States. We must prostrate ourselves before the will of all international fuckwits.
Instead we should have let Putin install his toady. God forbid we support the Ukrainian people's choice. It's a little known fact that every single person that camped in the city's square was a CIA employee: wow, huh?! I guess that Putin miscalculated the dose on the dioxin poisoning there, huh? "Geopolitical advantage"? Give me a break.
You smoke too much crack. We "dismantled" Yugoslavia? What, we went back in time and incited the hundreds of years of historical hatreds. We invaded them and kept them under an iron curtain until the friction of authoritarian rule from above caused them to explode?
Bush is a fucking retard. I don't think anyone is denying this.
Totally. We assigned McDonalds and Nike to go in there and set that up. We R teh Awesomez!
Maybe some evidence with those accusations, hrm? Our approach to Chavez is, "Oh god, what a nutcase". Do you know *anything* about
Because the poster is obviously ignoring Iraq.