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.'"

22 of 997 comments (clear)

  1. Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread by adnonsense · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.)

    1. Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread by janrinok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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
    2. Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
    3. Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      That's a more logical argument to make against placing defenses in Alaska or the Canadian North. Interceptor missiles in Eastern Europe won't be very effective against missiles launched over the pole and aimed at North America.

      you should at least try to consider the situation from their point of view

      That's fair. But they should consider the situation from our point of view. For better or worse Americans remember the Iranian hostage crisis. The first thought of many Americans when they think of Islam is of people willing to strap on explosives and kill themselves if they can take a few Westerners out with them. Combine all of that with the memory of 9/11 and the fact that the leader of Iran has called for the destruction of Israel (a nation that for better or worse is typically highly regarded in the United States) and denies the Holocaust and you can start to understand how Americans feel about the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons.

      I'm not saying that any of those feelings are justified or legitimate. I for one realize that Iran had no connection to 9/11 and that most Iranians are moderate and decent people. I for one realize that we've given the Iranian people lots of justifiable reasons for hating our guts at worst and for being wary of us at best. But that still doesn't change the fact that on some level they scare the hell out of me. Given that fact I will support any defensive efforts my Government makes to negate any Iranian missile threat aimed at the United States. And while I do not like a lot of things about Israel I would want to see us defend them against Iranian aggression.

      Hopefully it won't come to any of that. Bush will be gone soon -- hopefully to be replaced by somebody more reasonable and versed in the language of diplomacy and a foreign policy based more on realism then on ideology. With any luck maybe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be gone soon too.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Official "In Soviet Russia..." thread by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.
  2. This is just Putin playing politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:This is just Putin playing politics by WindBourne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is false. It actually will protect Europe from Russian, Chinese, NK, and Iranian launches. Why? Because this gets the rockets in cruise phase as opposed to boost or targeting. So anything that is coming overheard or just to the side will be blocked. The real issue is, how many missiles are we looking to put in? Not many. Russia can easily overrun our number with current inventory. The simple solution for Russia is to have verification of launchers/missiles. But it would be better for everyone if Bush would spend more time talking to Putin about this.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    2. Re:This is just Putin playing politics by mikerich · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It doesn't matter what the current missiles CAN do, its what future missiles COULD do and what the Russians THINK America wants to do.

      To clarify. Poland and the Czech Republic are on Russia's doorstep, less than a generation ago they were firmly inside the orbit of Moscow. Now, not only are they members of NATO but they are enthusiastically embracing the policies of the US military. This is bound to set red lights flashing in the Kremlin. Imagine the reaction in Washinton if Ottawa announced it was placing Russian missiles in Ontario - the US would see it as a grave provocation within its sphere of influence.

      Secondly, long term treaty aims are to reduce the amount of MIRVing on missiles AND to reduce to the number of missiles. The Russians are already coming from behind on this, they have large fleets of liquid fuelled SS18 missiles, well past their sell-by date, but capable of putting 10 warheads pretty much anywhere in the US. If they go down the treaty route they'll find themselves surrounded by anti-missile stations that MAY be upgradeable to take out Russian missiles.

      Russia was humiliated by the end of the Cold War, it lost its Empire, saw its beliefs collapse and then allowed its economy to be destroyed by Western 'reformers'; the end result was millions of Russians in horrifying poverty, the collapse of the economy, social system, education, and in large parts of the country, law-and-order. Now, it has discovered it has unbelievable power in the form of its energy reserves, it has massive amounts of foreign currency sloshing around, AND in the form of Putin, the fabled Russian strong man who can unite the country.

      American policy towards Russia under Bush has been a disaster, it has provoked confrontation after confrontation, rolled its tanks up to the borders, abbrogated long-standing treaties and acted like Russia was a backward nation. Putin is using national resentment to give America (and Britain in particular) a serious case of the jitters.

      Whether American missiles can destroy Russian missiles is almost immaterial, it gives the Russians a chance to throw their not-inconsiderable weight around, and it offers their, let be honest, stunning missile designers, plenty of opportunities to bring in a new generation of planet killers. Putin can now make sure he's succeeded by a fellow strong man and Russia can really start to influence European politics - at the end of the day, it's going to be the gas taps as much as the warheads that will make Europe gradually turn towards the East. And that may not be a good thing.

      But you can be sure this will also have been noticed in Beijing - another cash-rich country will soon be pouring money into solid-fuelled, MIRVed missiles. China is almost certain to build a missile submarine fleet and expand its own Pacific fleet - which brings another force into direct conflict with US strategic interests. At the end of the day, can the US compete in an arms race against TWO superpowers?

  3. "Targeting" is just rhetoric. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
  4. Old, poor Russia... by thelima · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:Old, poor Russia... by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To follow up on this excellent post, I'd like to point out that I'm American and I've spent a good deal of time in Ukraine in the past. My Ukrainian ex-girlfriend had 2 great-grandparents who were murdered by Stalin's henchmen while her grandfather was forced to watch for the "crime" of supposedly being Ukrainian nationalists. Putin is drunk with power and money thanks to Russia's oil and gas reserves. Times are more or less good in Russia for people who live in bigger cities. Even for common people. They're making more money than ever before and they credit Putin. He not only has little real opposition, but what little there is has been suppressed by him and he's stacked the deck to be sure that his party and his eventual hand picked successor will become the next president. Putin is an ex-KGB guy and he laments the breakup of the USSR. His wet dream is to rebuild the USSR, but I think at some level he knows that won't happen, so he'd prefer to have vassal states that pay homage to him and give him a virtual USSR to rule. He flipped out when Ukraiane protested the bogus presidential elections in late 2004 and eventually elected Yushchenko in a fair election. He wasn't happy with what happened in Georgia first in the Rose Revolution, but I think until Ukraine elected Yushchenko, he thought he could just bully Georgia back into line. I have little doubt that Putin would love to tell all of the old Warsaw Pact countries what to do just like in the "good old days". The US has stated that they intend to put 10, yes, 10 interceptor missles in Poland. Since Russia has well over 1000 nuclear missles, this is just more of Putin's nonsense that such interceptor missles are a "threat" to Russia. My ex-girlfriend and her family knew first hand what kind of "love" Mother Russia gives to her children and I can't say I blame thelima for not being interested in falling under Russian influence again.

  5. Re:As a russian expatriate by rumith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sure, North Korea could come up with some primitive missiles in a few years... that's why the US must deploy interceptors in Europe, instead of Japan, Taiwan, or South Korea. Same goes about Iran: the US has huge military presence in Turkey, Kuwait and United Arab Emirates, why not use those bases?

    Besides, something tells me that if Russia attempted to deploy similar ICBM countermeasures at Cuban or Venezuelan territory, all hell would break loose. Just because somebody is at peace with you now, doesn't mean that he won't be at war with you some time later, especially if you're dealing with the world's mightiest and most aggressive superpower.

  6. Mental illness feeds on itself. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.)

  7. "It feels like the Cold War all over again." by XNormal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  8. Do Not Ignore Threats of Nuclear Annihilation! by reporter · · Score: 5, Informative
    "The Economist" recently published a concise summary of relations between the West and Russia. The summary stated, "DEMONSTRATORS thrashed on the streets of Moscow; the impending mugging of another big energy firm, this one part-owned by BP; cyberwarfare against a small neighbour; the bellicose testing of a new ballistic missile, supposedly able to bypass the American missile-defence system about which the Kremlin fulminates--and all that was only in the past fortnight. When the G8 group of rich countries meets next week in Germany, one of its biggest if unadvertised concerns will be the snarling behaviour of one of its own members, Vladimir Putin's Russia--and the urgent need for a more coherent Western policy towards it."

    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".

  9. Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8? by reporter · · Score: 5, Informative
    In a report issued today, the Bloomberg news service is also asking why Russia is in the G-8. The report states, "The tensions are again raising questions about why Putin is even a member of the [G-8] club. The original Group of Six leading industrialized nations -- the U.S., Japan, U.K., France, Germany and Italy -- first met in 1975, and Canada joined a year later. While Russia's economy is only the world's 10th largest -- behind nonmembers China and Spain -- it was admitted to the club in 1997 as President Boris Yeltsin struggled to manage the nation's transition to a capitalist democracy. G-8 membership was an 'advance payment' that assumed Russia would gradually move closer to the values of the other members, Volk says. Among leaders of the other nations, there were 'a lot of illusions that by engaging Russia they can influence Russia,' Volk says. That hasn't happened. These days, 'there's a consensus among every major western country' that Russia is going backward on democracy, says Masha Lipman, a political analyst at the Moscow Carnegie Center."

    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.

  10. Re:Bloomberg: Why is Russia in the G-8? by Magada · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the Kremlin threatens nuclear annihilation against Eastern Europe, the very least that we can do is to expel Russia from the G-8. That's exactly the kind of escalation mentality that brought us the Cold War. Russia is NOT threatening Eastern Europe with nuclear annihilation. Putin simply stated that the missile defense bases will be included in the Russian military's nuclear target list. That makes a lot of sense and is actually a measured response. If the Russians planted anti-missile-missile batteries around Guadalajara tomorrow, Bush would have them bombed the day after. Putin simply cannot afford that US military types begin to believe they could "win" a nuclear exchange because that would threaten the very existence of Russia. That is the only button you can push to make him behave aggressively right now, and Bush is pushing it, hard. Witness Putin's lame reaction when US troops landed in Afghanistan - Russia does not want conflict and cannot afford conflict even if it wanted it.

    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.
  11. Re:I have a better idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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:

    1. A fellow named Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev who also happens to be the premier of the Soviet Union takes a vacation on the Black Sea.
    2. He gets a visit from a general who points out to him US missile bases on the Turkish side a strategic stone's throw from where they are standing.
    3. Khrushchev decides that if the USA can plant missiles in the USSR's back yard surely the USSR can plant missiles in the USA's back yard?
    4. Vastly underestimating depth of US anti communist hysteria Krushev orders missies to be deployed to Cuba.
    5. The US finds out.
    6. Outrage sweeps in Washington, nobody seems to register the degree to which similar US actions might have contributed to this.
    7. Surprise at the US reaction sweeps Moscow, nobody had seriously thought about what reaction nuclear missiles in Cuba might cause in Washington. After all the USA had planted nuclear missiles in Turkey within sight of the Soviet premier's summer house hadn't it?
    8. The US president John F Kennedy is overwhelmed both by Soviet actions and pressure by hawks in the US to respond with maximum force. To his credit he orders reconnaissance flights to be made by US forces in order to establish the facts on the ground before pressing any red buttons. At first these flights are relatively non threatening U-2 missions but eventually high speed low level over-flights are ordered at altitudes of some 300m in order to obtain detailed imagery. These over-flights along with a few other incidents caused by overzealous people on both sides including one involving aggressive US Navy behavior towards a missile armed Soviet sub in the region convinced many Soviet and Cuban participators in the crisis that the US was trying really, really hard to deliberately provoke a war. In reality of course it seems that people in the US were simply trying really, really hard to figure out what was going on in Cuba and not taking into consideration what over-flights by reconnaissance aircraft, aircraft who incidentally were almost indistinguishable from the fighter and bomber variants of the same aircraft type, made at high subsonic and even super sonic speeds would look like to the Cuban/Soviet military.
    9. Nuclear war (almost) ensues but is averted by a frighteningly small number of cool heads on both sides of the curtain, sometimes by communicating through unofficial channels.

    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

  12. If you're a russian expatriate, get THIS by Moraelin · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  13. Re:I have a better idea by phayes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  14. Re:I have a better idea by catbutt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    I think there was once a country that took that attitude. But you've probably never heard of it because it existed for like, what, 10 minutes?

    Nice fantasy, though.
  15. Empire vs. Empire by mi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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.