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.
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
I think they were talking about cruise missiles, which Russia recently tested, not ballistic ones like Satan SS-18. Cruise subsonic missiles (like Tomahawk) are cheaper and much harder to intercept and they will hit the targets in Europe within 10-15 minutes.
...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
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.
Let's see who can put the first man into space this time.
What?
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.)
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
You mean the war that wasn't and was just a ... a hoax. Oh yeah, I forgot, we accept everything Slashdot feeds us as gospel. Good thing Bush doesn't read Slashdot, he might have decided to get his preemptive strike 'on'..
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?
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".
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
they want their cold war back.
(Or Reagan called, or whatever, think of something, this space for rent)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
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
....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
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."