Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Missile Defense Against Iran Makes China/Russia Mad, Might Not Even Work
An anonymous reader writes "The United States, since the 1980s, has been trying to make missile defense work. Billions of dollars spent, tons of political capital spent, and not a lot to show. The U.S. does have two viable options: the SM-2 and SM-3, although neither are perfect. The U.S., with European allies, has been deploying missile defense in Europe to block a possible strike from Iranian nuclear tipped missiles (even though they have not made nukes or the missiles to carry them). One problem: such defenses could, in theory, also block Russian and Chinese missiles. Russia is now planning to make more missiles to counter such defenses and could pull out of the New Start Treaty. They may also stop helping U.S. forces to supply themselves in Afghanistan. Is this all worth it for something that might not even work?"
The big problem is not that it makes Russia mad, but that with further development it could make America not MAD. Without mutually assured destruction, the nuclear peace will come to an end. It's like the US is deliberately trying to force a WW3. It's about time to realise that the cold war is over.
This is purely a political article, without even a significant tech angle. Who votes for (Firehose) these articles for Slashdot? Not I. You might as well make it a poll.
Considering the government has to spend my tax dollars frivolously, hell look at the bank bailouts.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
How about just give them the same technology? They wont need to build more offensive missiles if they have their own method of blocking incoming missiles.... unless their motives are less than honorable.
If we didn't give them the technology, perhaps America's intentions are less than honorable.
if the cold war is over why you're bringing up mutually assured destruction thing? its a cold war artifact, unless you're really trying to say that cold was is not over and we need to continue those treaties like in the past?
(even though they have not made nukes or the missiles to carry them)
Are you sure about that? You know they are working very hard towards both ends, right? You did see the news the last couple days about Iran launching another "satellite" into orbit next month?
Better known as 318230.
Maybe I'm missing something, but how it it a "problem" that the system is able to block missiles from Russia and China?
is a cryptographic protocol between the ballistic missile and the interceptor:
Scenario 1:
US missile shield: Who are you? And what do you want?
Incoming missile: Huh?
US missile shield: **BAM**
Scenario 2:
US missile shield: Who are you? And what do you want?
Incoming missile: I'm a Soviet missile here to wipe out New Jersey. Here's a message digest signed by my private key.
US missile shield: Oh... well, OK.
Scenario 3 (imposter):
US missile shield: Who are you? And what do you want?
Incoming missile: I'm a Soviet missile. But you see, I'm afraid the dog got a hold of my...
US missile shield: **BAM**
Is a system that could save millions of lives without infringing on our freedoms worth it? Yes. How could anyone think otherwise. These missile defense system can not feasibly be used offensively. If someone gets mad at us for wanting to be able to defend ourselves, isn't that their problem?
Two probs:
1) "block a possible strike from Iranian nuclear tipped missiles" I'm going to take a wild guess that culturally they Might prefer using a Toyota pickup truck or a shipping container or a standard passenger jetliner as a delivery vehicle. In the US we've forgotten why we're fixated on missiles, its because the USSR couldn't realistically, say, drive a truck over here with a H-bomb, so it ends up being missile vs missile.
2) SM series is "standard missile". Its really hard to specify how much work went into ballistic missile defense vs plain ole blowing stuff up. So political types will charge it as either thousands to billions depending on which axe they have to grind. So.. that vim editor... how much money was spent on editing Python? Well, you could evaluate what percentage was used in the field for Perl vs Python. Or you could look at bugs filed. Or some BS about test suites. Fundamentally its just a pretty darn useful editor. Much as a SM is a pretty darn useful wide envelope missile. It is emphatically not a "ballistic defense only" weapon.
3) There's endless rumors and BS about how SM series can be hacked into hitting seaskimming cruise missiles, but fundamentally you're better off with fast acting projectile weapons. You don't get much warning...
I would assume "they" would put their bomb into the vehicle "we" (well, we as in we are merely a province or whatever of Israel, always acting exclusively with their interests in mind, according to our leaders) are least suited to defend against. I suppose with the possible exception of WWII era strategic bomber, I can't think of a less likely delivery vehicle than a ballistic missile. I would guess its almost infinitely more likely that an off the shelf Iranian submarine gets as close to the USS Enterprise as physically possible before the deadman switch is released, or a shipping container is delivered to the port of L.A. or whatever thats marked as Couscous but actually glows instead...
There ARE interesting things for Iran to do with ballistic missiles. Nuke is not one of them.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
You have to understand that anything the US does makes Russia, or rather its "national leader", mad. The anti-American rhetoric on the Russian TV today is virtually identical to that during the height of the Cold War. It is also worth pointing out that today the level of state control over Russian TV is not much lower than it was back then.
To the Russian leadership the US is the whipping boy. According to them, the US State Department has organized and financed the protests against massive election fraud that are happening in Russia as we speak. According to them, all the problems in Russia are not caused by corruption and total disregard for the law or human dignity, but by the US. Therefore, anything the US does on the international scene will be immediately labeled a threat to Russia and loudly condemned.
Or we could have been spending 30 years and countless billions on things that actually work versus flushing the money down the toilet on something that will never realistically work and burning diplomatic goodwill at the same time? No that's stupid and your Rush Limbaugh-esque response is clearly what was meant.
Editors, this article is a complete troll. This has nothing to do with "News for Nerds", and it's not even newsworthy.
For the record, it was recently published that President Obama is in talks with Russia to give some classified tactical information about United States nuclear missiles in return for Russia's approval of the missile defense systems.
Boromir's answer -
One does not simply stop the "Star Wars"
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Are we going to be having another arms race now all of a sudden?
I thought Reagan and Gorbachev figured out back in the 80ies that missile defense was a terrible idea, since it's trivially overwhelmed by an 'asymmetric response', that is one side just launching A FUCKTON of missiles.
Admit nothing. Deny Everything. Make Counter-accusations.
It's all about the money.
Everyone *knows* they wont fire on each other. That would be suicide, regardless of any "defenses".
So it's all for show, to get leverage aginst the other. Something to bargin with, to take off the table in negotiations
regarding existing things that costs money.
*That* is why Russia and China is sobbing uncontrollably. They lose a bit of influence. Dictatorships are keen
on the whole 'control' thing.
Outsource ABM systems manufacture to China.
Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
Translation: I still have no arguments beyond ad homs. This system has never and will never work despite 30 years of protestations otherwise.
Yes. He's the one that ordered development of missile defense... except... wait... he wasn't. This all began under Reagan (I'll wager it's certainly been considered earlier). So WTF with Obama? I don't understand this blaming of the current president for technology that's been under development for the last three or four of them.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
At one point, I worked in the mil side of weapons at Boeing.
The correct answer is not "might not". It's "will not".
Everyone in the industry knows what actually does work, and what we're talking about for the EU is not in the "workable" solutions choices.
Unless you think a 10 percent success rate with 90 percent getting through if they use all standard countermeasures is a "good thing". In real world operations with real weather, not faked tests.
Not that Iran could hit the broad side of a Polish barn - that's a fiction too.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
When dealing with missile systems, nothing works 100% of the time, nor do they hit a target every time it's fired, to think otherwise is pure fantasy. This isn't Quake or Unreal.
The first thing to remember is that the United States isn't the only country working on these systems. The Russian Federation has a ring in place and is expanding their advanced S-300 and S-400 deployments around cities, India is working on systems with tests scheduled for this year, the Japanese have access to all of the Patriot and Standard R&D and test data and are adopting them too, Israel is working on SRBM and MRBM interception missiles.
Even when dealing with nuclear weapons, no warhead hits the target directly or close enough to destroy it 100% of the time, this is why when dealing with force and counter force calculations, multiple warheads are targeted at a point.
Adding interceptor weapons, something the Russian Federation already has batteries of around Moscow and St Petersburg, to the US arsenal gives the US a chance to intercept a small decapitation strike, or to attrit it enough that it isn't guaranteed to be 100% effective.
For small nuclear arsenals like North Korea or a nuclear Iran, a battery of interceptors could be better than ~70% per interceptor, eliminating a small arsenal's threat value. For medium sized arsenals like France, Great Britain, Pakistan, India, Israel and China, interceptors would make them devote more of their force and counter force warheads into a strike.
The Russian Federation getting so upset by a handful of interceptors either means their current ICBM and SLBMs are very vulnerable to boost and post-boost interception or they only plan on using a handful of missiles in decapitation strikes, which is the only thing US ABMs could deal with in regards to the Russians.
President Obama flat turned them down. President Medvedev was not happy, and recorded a very stern video explaining why rejecting Russia was bound to escalate tensions along the EU-RF border. (In other words he didn't like hearing "no" to being part of the missile shield.)
I can't figure it out. Why would President Obama say no to a potential partner and ally in this endeavor? It was the kind of thing I would expect from Bush not Obama.
Actually, the U.S. and NATO offered to include Russia in the missile defense shield in the form of sharing early warning data (I don't believe they intended to share the actual missile intercept systems) around Fall 2010. Russia resisted, and came back a year later demanding that NATO legally bind themselves to never aiming the system towards Russia, which the U.S. and other NATO countries rejected. Most recently there has been some noise about sharing technical data with the Russians to assuage their fears, but I haven't seen any concrete information on what exactly was being offered, or even if there if there ever actually was a formal (or informal) offer.
We could restore the balance by reducing our inventory of offensive weapons, to everyone's (I think) satisfaction. Thus we have defenses against the psycho-islamists without unduly alarming rational self-defenders.
It's a threat because cold war era logic dictates that the only thing keeping either of us from hitting the button is assurance that the launch would be promptly detected and the other side would launch in retaliation, leading to our mutual destruction. If we knew we were protected by some impenetrable missile defense shield, our button finger might get itchy. I'm not saying I agree with the logic, but obviously someone still does.
I blame Obama because Russia asked for the shield to be extended over Russian territoru, and he turned them down.
I think that decision was stupid; you will protect all your EU democratic allies but not Russia? Not even the western half ot it? Talk about giving the middle finger.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Russia just said that because they knew the US would refuse it anyway. And it's not "EU trading partners", it's NATO. They are welcome to invade Sweden and Finland, but don't mess with Norway!
They have been major trading partners (including arms sales) with Iran, Syria, etc. for a long time, and have no worries about Iran firing missiles at them. It's all politics.
As usually, the Slashdot editors have missed trivial fact checking. The summary states that Iran does not have nukes or the missiles to carry them. The first part of this is true (for the next year or two) but the second is not. Even a casual Google search brings up a wealth of links detailing Iran's ballistic missile program.
For example:
Given the current progress of the Iranian nuclear weapons program (and the recent inspections indicate almost certainly that Iranian is working toward that capability) and their current arsenal of ballistic missile the only question left in your mind would be whether they would actually use them. Well, the recent terrorism incidents in Georgia, India, Thailand as well as historical attacks in Buenos Aires and Iranian-backed attacks in Lebanon and Iraq ought to give you a clue. If Iranians get nukes to go with their missiles they and their proxies will feel safe in escalating such attacks - anywhere in the World (including where *you* live). The time is rapidly running out on the opportunity to stop the Iranians before they reach this point, and they have rebuffed all other opportunities to give the weapons research up for the last decade (choosing to accept sanctions rather than get goodies from the West for giving them up - which shows just how determined they are to complete their nuclear programme). It is also time for the ostriches to get their head out of the sand.
It will "work" as in provide money to line the pockets of all the contractors. And the contractors do the same for the politicians....so it definitely "works" already.
However to "not work" it would have to fail. For that to happen, it would actually have to miss a missle.... which would require one be actually fired. So its unlikely to work unless the politicians here are so fucking stupid.....fuck....
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Most likely a missile defense shield requires the anti missile tech to be placed locally. I don't think that the U.S. wants to park a brand new multi-billion dollar technology right in the Kremlin's backyard, where it will conveniently go missing.
Does this mean it is now politically incorrect to celebrate Yuri's Night in USA? So far, in SF bay area there is not much scheduled. I miss all the wild and zany people at YNBA held at Ames Research Center.
mfwright@batnet.com
Not at all welcome. The "open secret" of NATO's plans for USSR attack on Finland was to use tactical nukes to cripple the country's infrastructure. Basically to backstab the country that tries to defend itself at the critical moment.
That's why most finns are rather sceptical on NATO trying to show itself as the "good guys" during Cold War.
Is this all worth it for something that might not even work?"
Short answer: YES!
Longer answer: HELL YES!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Frankly, I don't care if it makes them mad. They can either go to defcon 1 and start WW3 or they can stew in it.
The US is going to make itself safe. We have even offered Russia and china this technology repeatedly. We don't mind if they can stop our missiles too. The goal is not to give the US first strike capability as much as it is to take first strike capability away from any other ICBM power.
As to Iran and NK this makes the cheap third rate ICBMs from these powers totally ineffective. Already Israel is shooting down the cheap missiles from the palestinians on a daily basis. And that's just a test bed for the short range applications. Ultimately, we're going to have a global system of anti ICBM nets that detect at launch and then have MANY opportunities at various ranges to shoot down missiles. Practically from the start they're going to have to start dodging anti ICBM fire. And by the time the missile storm gets to the target very little if anything should have survived.
This is how we kill the ICBM. We're not disarming. We need to make ICBMs obsolete.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Look at the alternative: admit that Saint Ronald Regan made a horrible mistake. Can you imagine the devastation that would cause to the religion of about 40% of America? Any amount spent on SDI is worth it to keep from admitting such a thing.
"If you're not passionate about your operating system, you're married to the wrong one."
Some physicists claim it only hits 20% of the time.
I guess that problem is solved by raising the budget 500% and launching 5 anti-missiles for each incoming one.
Since you clearly don't understand wtf with Obama, let me help you out.
Obama is responsible for the daily price of gas.
Obama is responsible for the effect that the Bush tax cuts have had on our economy.
Obama is responsible for the effects of Republican-led deregulation of the financial industry.
Obama is responsible for the Lewinsky scandal.
Obama is responsible for AT&T's terribly-implemented "unlimited data" plan.
Your favorite restaurant just hiked their lunch buffet up to $11.95, and Obama made them do it.
Obama is responsible for Newt Gingrich's congressional ethics violations (unless you're talking to Newt, in which case they never happened and/or he was completely exonerated.)
Have you, or has anyone you've ever known had cancer? Thanks, Obama.
Obama is responsible for the Reagan tax increases.
Obama is responsible for Iran-Contra.
Obama is responsible for funding jihadists during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and thus responsible for both the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Obama is responsible for Barry Goldwater.
The Vietnam war is just yet another example of Obama's complete incompetence.
How can you wonder if it works? It does what it was intended to do. It transfers money to Raytheon, The Carlisle Group, etc. etc.
I would think the shared humiliations would bring them closer. I suppose at least one of them isn't really trying to get it right, but it still must be hard to be around the ones that actually do.
The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
To recall "Watchmen" (and I'm paraphrasing): "Even if John were able to stop 99% of the nukes launched, it would still be enough to wipe out all life on earth."
A missile defense system is a good idea, if for exampl,e we are fighting a foe with only a few SRBMs or ICBMs, and we have many counter-missiles. Given the chance and consequences of failing to shoot down an ICBM, a real nuclear defense network would be completely impractical vs a nation with a large number of missiles. And let's not forget that most ICBMs are on subs, or the nuclear warheads in stockpiles attached to cruise missile compliments. None of these examples even mentions nuclear bombs and munitions that can be carried by aircraft...how does a defense system protect against a stealth bomber dropping a GPS guided 100 KT warhead when the bomber is already orbiting your capital?
The missile defense networks / STAR WARS are just defense theater, they don't provide real protection.
.
What the US defense system does buy them is the capability of negating the first few missiles that a terrorist, or small country, might try to launch at a place they care about enough about to try to defend, and that could even include parts of Russia if they wanted it that way. The US has no problem protecting friendly nations, but apparently Russia doesn't want to see things that way for some reason.
Russia clearly has some alternator political motives. Perhaps boosting their own defenses will help bring themselves out of a bad economic situation? Who knows. What they do know that the US defensive missiles don't even carry a warhead, they just disintegrate the other missile through shear kinetic energy. If you are not an exoatmospheric ballistic missile flying a Mach 3 then you don't really have have much to fear. There is no logical reason for the US to launch nuclear missiles at Russia just because they could stop the first few that they threw back at them. That is just illogical and completely irrational.
Obama IS responsible for due process free execution of several American Citizens based on a secret legal memo (repeat of the GWB policies toward due process free detention).
Obama IS responsible for Yemen's continued imprisonment of a news reporter. His sin? Most likely:
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/14/obamas_personal_role_in_a_journalists_imprisonment/singleton/
Seriously, you make light of Obama's failings with things that clearly aren't his fault, but that only serves to obfuscate the fact that he's taken everything that GWB did that was considered radical and dangerous, and made it the new normal. In a world of asshole murdering civil liberty destroying shits, Obama is president.
Here's a partial list, address some of that before you defend this guy:
http://nothingchanged.org/
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
No, Obama is responsible for killing those women and children. If Yemen wants to take hostages in retaliation, that's their own action. Anyway, your sig proves you're a pathelogical idiot that insists on blaming one American for America's failings, likely because that American is not you.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
"Obama is responsible for the effects of Republican led deregulation of the financial industry"
You do know that some of the more catastrophic deregulation was a bipartisan effort and was led by Bill Clinton, Larry Summers and Bob Rubin, especially repealing Glass Steagal and blocking derivatives regulation. You seem to be doing them same thing you are ridiculing, saying its all the other parties fault. Its entrenched power and greed that is at fault, and both parties have it in equal measure.
@de_machina
On one hand your "open secret" is absolute baloney, i.e. nonsense. On the other, it is beautiful, absolutely beautiful, a textbook example of:
Disinformation
Disinformation is mostly commonly described as false information created by governments in wartime for military purposes and by totalitarian governments for political purposes in peacetime. Rumors, lies, and other forms of disinformation were made public by the Soviet Union to discredit the United States, the latter being the context in which the word is generally applied. The KGB coined the Russian word dezinformatsiya ; it came into the English language as disinformation. The technique of disinformation goes back at least to 1918 with the end of World War I. Disinformation as a KGB weapon began in 1923 when I. S. Inshlikht, deputy chairman of the GPU, then the name of the KGB, proposed the establishment of a special disinformation office to conduct active intelligence operations.
Soviet active measures. Soviet active measures refer to the influence operations organized by the Soviet government. These include white, gray, and black propaganda, as well as disinformation. White propaganda was created by the Information Department of the Communist Party and included those publicly identified Soviet channels as Radio Moscow, Novosti, and pamphlets and magazines as well as official Soviet government statements. Gray propaganda was organized by the International Department of the Communist Party and used such channels as the foreign Communist Parties and the network of international Soviet fronts. Black propaganda was prepared by the KGB and included agents of influence, covert media placements, and until 1959, assassinations. Forgeries and disinformation were used by the Soviets in all modes. The first effective disinformation campaign was during the Korean Conflict. This was a major Soviet disinformation campaign that generated media attention. The Americans were accused of going into Korean villages during the Korean conflict (1950–1953) and shooting villagers, or killing them with biological weapons and chemical warfare. In fact, the Soviets used anthrax in Korea to kill men, women, and children, and then blamed it on the Americans. . . .
A sensational disinformation story appeared with allegations that the United States deliberately created AIDS in the laboratory to use it as a weapon. The KGB started the story in 1985 with placements in both Soviet and foreign newspapers; by September, 1986, it became a major campaign when an English language paper that actually originated in East Berlin carried the story. "AIDS: Its Nature and Origin," was distributed at the Non-Aligned Movement Summit in Harare, where it contained pseudo scientific verbiage, but the only evidence linking the origin of AIDS to U.S. military laboratories was the following unfounded statement: "The first appearance of AIDS exactly coincides with the opening of a P-4 laboratory at Fort Detrick [Maryland]—taking into account the incubation period. This is also indicated by the fact that the spreading of AIDS to the world emanated from New York, a city in the neighbourhood of Fort Detrick. The assumption that AIDS is a product of the preparation of biological warfare can therefore quite plainly be expressed."
The Soviet disinformation campaign accused the U.S. government of creating the AIDS virus as a weapon against black people and the story quickly appeared worldwide, despite U.S. protests that Fort Detrick, in Maryland, was hundreds of miles from New York. In April 1987, U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop advised the Soviets that if this campaign continued, "direct U.S
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If the Russians and the Chinese really thought that ABM missiles wouldn't work, they wouldn't CARE if we built them - because they wouldn't work!
The fact that the Russians and the Chinese (who are STILL our potential enemies) are furious tells us that they are pretty sure that the missiles WILL work. Not perfectly, maybe not even "pretty well", but at least enough to spoil their disarming first strike plans. Without the ability to launch a first strike effectively, they cannot attack at all. And even the POSSIBILITY that an ABM system MIGHT work is enough to raise the fear among THEIR warplanners.
One of the greatest military victories of the Cold War was a battle that was never fought. The USAF built a high-altitude supersonic long range bomber, against which the USSR had NO DEFENSES AT ALL. The B-70 Valkyrie would fly too high and too fast for the Soviet fighters to bring it down, and was probably fast enough to escape from most air defense missiles. So the USSR began a crash program to create a fighter that could engage the Valkyrie successfully. And the Mig-25 FOXBAT was that high-flying supersonic interceptor, the anti-B-70.
The Soviets built several squadrons of Foxbats before the USAF cancelled the XB-70 program after only two aircraft. One crashed after a midair with a chase fighter, and the other is the star attraction at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton, Ohio.
In a move that probably gave Tom Clancy the basic plot of "Hunt for Red October", a Russian Mig-25 pilot named Viktor Belenko defected to Japan, and purchased his asylum with his Foxbat. (He even wrote a book about it.) Turns out that the Foxbat was prohibitively expensive to build and fly, and required new engines every 250 hours. The Foxbat literally bankrupted the USSR - and for an enemy that never existed.
When we build a feasible missile defense system, the Russians and the Chinese will either bankrupt themselves trying to overwhelm it, or will admit that their own first strike dreams are quite out of the question. We'll find certain safety in THEIR uncertain capabilities.
Every decoy RV, every fleck of reflective paint, every GRAM of armor on an inbound missile that MIGHT serve to protect the missile from being destroyed by our defenses COSTS THEM irreplaceable warhead payload mass. To make the Reentry Vehicle sturdy enough, they'll lose half or more of the warhead itself.
This sounds like a first approximation of victory to me!
Because for US to start a nuclear war, it's sufficient that US military and government beieved that those things will work.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
knew
Actually, that should be "believed". The shield doesn't have to work to provoke a nuclear war -- it's sufficient that people who make decisions believe it to be effective. Beyond that, it could just as well be an Angry Birds style slingshot.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
That's complete and undiluted bullshit. USSR economy worked as a huge nonprofit, building weapons was just as "expensive" as building civilian products. For this to have any impact on economy, the amount of military production would have to strip civilian cities from population.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
These countries are new to capitalism. Either that, or this is all bluster. We'll know sooner or later. If we find out that they're working on an anti-anti-missile-missile then we'll know they understand capitalism. Then we can continue to produce our anti-missile-missile while simultaneously developing, are your ready? Here goes: an anti-anti-anti-missile-missile-pogostick. Why a pogostick? Because any good capitalist knows you can't stay locked in one frame of mind. You have to innovate. That's why we're the best.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
First of all, I am a finn. If you know any finns that would "in polite terms disagree with me", they are a minority and below you'll find out why.
You see, as with any small neutral country stuck between two grandiose empires that could stomp us out and not barely notice it throughout our independence (which is what they thought of us, namely Germany, USSR and later on NATO), we had our shills for all sides. During cold war we had our Soviet shills, and our NATO shills. I'm guessing you've been talking to descendants of the latter. Notably their numbers are in low 30 percentile and have been going down steadily across the country for almost a decade now as people with severe phobia of anything Russia-related due to WW2 part of our history die out of old age and we get more and more Russian tourists bringing good money into the economy.
On topic of disinformation, that either wasn't it, or if it was, it sure fooled everyone (including some medium level NATO attaches who were spying for us). In here, when you build a building that houses more then a few people, you have to, BY LAW to build a bomb shelter in it with mandated level of low ABC proofing since early cold war. Every big city has one to several bomb shelters typically dug into solid rock rated to survive a 20 kiloton tactical nuke explosion directly above itself. Note the payload, it was exactly what we were expecting NATO to drop on us in potential conflict and the goal was the classic Finnish pragmatism - to allow as many of our people as possible to survive to fight another day even at significant additional costs to economy. During peace time, they're used as hokey rinks, swimming pools and so on. I go to one such swimming pool weekly - the entrance is less then 500m from my home. They are also required by law to have a plan on how to prepare it to function as a bomb shelter within 4 weeks.
Do note that we had near zero nuclear treat from Soviets due to geography - any nukes in southern Finland where biggest cities are and where biggest shelters are built mean a likely fallout in 5.000.000 people city of Leningrad.
All in all, your argument is that of a classic NATO shill. "You had two wars with Soviets, therefore anyone opposing them is a force for good!". Except that opposing force was about as "evil" from our point of view, and the only meaningful difference for us independents caught between was the direction in which guns are pointed. Which was usually at us, from both sides, because both followed the "if you're not with us, you're potentially against us" doctrine. In the end, we survived independent because we played both sides against one another, just like we played Germany against USSR in 1944 to stay independent in spite of suffering the heaviest Red Army assault in the entire war.
Notably USSR gave us very good trading terms during Cold War, we were classified in the "Warsaw pact countries and Finland" category. Something that even NATO liked to use to trade with USSR and vice versa, because it meant being able to indirectly trade for things you couldn't trade directly due to political fallout through a politically stable country with a culture that valued privacy of such deals.
So in short, most Finns that actually live around here would tell you, in actually polite and laconic terms, to stuff it. We're the only country in Molotov-Ribbentrop that succeeded to stay independent, we succeeded to stay independent during Cold War in spite of pressure from USSR and NATO to join one of them, and we'll stay independent now if current polls about desirability of NATO membership are anything to go by. That is because history taught us one thing: empires only care about themselves and allying yourself with one of them would likely cost you independence as most unbalanced deals with the devil do.
P.S. It may surprise you to find out that we also have quite a few statues of Lenin around here. They're usually tactfully hidden, but we do remember who it was that gave us independence for first time in our history. So if you think that our history together with our neighbours started in WW2, you're sorely mistaken.
Just one question, are we going to have to suffer this drivel 'til the election is over? For fuck's sake, it's still almost a year before that puppet show is finally done.
Can we just flip a coin and go on with the show? I don't even care anymore which Punch gets to take the stage.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, the U.S. and NATO offered to include Russia in the missile defense shield in the form of sharing early warning data (I don't believe they intended to share the actual missile intercept systems) around Fall 2010.
Russia has no nuclear-capable "potential enemies" except the USA. China is very safe, and Israel's arsenal is purely defensive. Russia has good relations with both. Europe is not interested in wars. India and Pakistan are focused on each other. However the USA habitually wages wars and throws its weight around; in part that's necessary to sustain the dying economy and falling dollar and the armies of unemployed. Therefore sharing the early warning data would be useless. Russia would need some sufficient control over interceptor sites to be sure that they are not targeting Russian launch sites. But NATO would want to cover Russia as well, even though it is not very effective. The danger here is that what is not sufficiently effective for a general might be sufficiently effective for an ignorant, half-crazy President (like John McCain, for example.) US voters are perfectly capable of electing such a person.
The latest talk is that Obama gives Russia the specs on interceptors (as if Russia doesn't have them already, which I presume.) I do not believe there will be any agreement unless Russia can know for a fact that its territory is not covered by the shield, one way or another. The need for that is caused by existence of WMD in all involved countries. If we look at the history, the Mad Fuehrer rose to absolute power in Germany within about a decade. The same unfortunate event can, theoretically, happen in any nuclear country - and therefore MAD has to remain for now, to keep such a budding dictator of the world in check.
True. Sweden coordinated its defences with NATO in secret during the cold war era (and probably still is).
Swedish soldiers were trained to shoot at the tanks with a red star on them, not to stop and think about who the enemy was.
And at the same time Sweden was oficcially neutral, which is part of the ongoing hypocrisy that is Swedish foreign policy.
Sweden was officially neutral during WW2 also, but still allowed German troop transports through Swedish territory. This was partly out of fear of being invaded, but it may also have been because a lot of Swedes, including politicians and businessmen, were sympathetic with Nazism and hoped for a German victory.
You've got it all wrong. Cheney isn't Darth Vader. Karl Rove is the Emperor, Cheney is Grand Moff Tarkin, and George Bush is Darth Vader.
I will clarify the following remark:
On one hand your "open secret" is absolute baloney, i.e. nonsense.
It is directed at your proposition that NATO's intent would be to "backstab" Finland and the implied hostility toward Finland as opposed to defeating Soviet military units operating in Finland. Clearly NATO had no meaningful dispute with Finland during the Cold War, but would not ignore Soviet forces operating from conquered Finnish territory to attack NATO and allied countries. If the Finnish military lost control of a major facility or area to Soviet forces, there would be little chance they would get it back. The best they would be likely to manage would be sabotage operations which would be unlikely to seriously impede Soviet operations.
It is well known that NATO was willing to use nuclear weapons on its own territory to defeat Warsaw Pact forces if necessary, and any NATO nuclear munitions detonated inside of Finland would have been for the same purpose: to defeat Warsaw Pact (most likely Soviet) forces, not to "backstab" Finland. Thankfully that was an issue that never had to be faced. I notice you had nothing to say about Soviet nuclear weapons, or the prospect of indefinite occupation of Finland by the Soviets without NATO assistance in defeating them. (It's not 1939 any more.)
Food for thought:
Sweden Secretly Assisted Nato's Cold War Defense
Finnish-US military co-operation during cold war
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
from population
Should be "of population".
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
On Slashdot, your sig defines who you are, nobody remembers your username. Your's criticises Obama, so that's what you are an embodyment of on this particular website. There is no difference in this case between playing the man and the ball, since nobody on the Internet ever will see any more of the man than the text at the end of his post.
Anyway, I like my sig better, strangely relevant to this.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
There's a question of the price of your independence though, in World War II you effectively retained independence by siding with the Nazis.
I think there's a fair argument that it's actually better that your country falls and to fight your oppressors in rebellion, than it is to side with a greater evil and hence inherently aid them in their goal.
I suppose it boils down to the question of whether it's better to protect yourselves, or the greater human population, I guess Finns prefer the former option, but with that there is a danger that when evil has finished with everyone else with your assistance, they may come for you anyway.
(alright then , NATO does - and ok, not all countries)
and defends it with the ridiculous excuse that "it's for defending against Iran" . Nobody believes that. (Ok, except for the press then). This is completely about NATO absorbing the neighborstates of Russia. Iran is irrelevant.
To be honest, it's a pretty hollow victory. In the aftermath of a nuclear war, as the nuclear winter sets in, whether the nuclear winter was set off by 300kt warheads or 1MT warheads is pretty much academic.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Finland did not collaborate with the Nazis. Finnish troops never crossed the Finn border to advance upon Leningrad no matter how much the OKH (and Hitler himself) begged and pleaded and whined and cajoled.
Finns did not round up their Jews, or their Communists (in fact, even communist Finns who had actively participated in the Russian invasion were pardoned).
Even the Finnish volunteer SS battalion (Finland's only semi-official contribution to the Nazi war effort) was not accused of any war-crimes. It was established in 1941, fought until 1943 and was disbanded, having fought with honour for the agreed-upon two years. Compare and contrast with Norwegian, Italian, Romanian or Hungarian contributions.
Germany, in return, never actually put its full might behind Finland.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
Now now, please get back into your crib and stop bothering the adults.
Why such an incomplete list? Do you think you are fooling anyone by leaving off the rest?
For example Obama is clearly responsible for the recent solar storms!
So you sided with the Nazis in WW2 when it was convenient and you're siding with the Russians when it's convenient. I'll give you points for pragmatism.
NATO an "empire"? Hilarious. You don't know NATO very well. NATO's purpose is to keep European countries from fighting each other by keeping them ensnared in bureaucracy.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
The website is nothing BUT a list citations.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
It's not a cold war artifact. It's an artifact of Nuclear War. Each side knows the other side can blow you out of the water, so you don't attempt a strike. Should one side feel they can survive an attack, the likelihood of a strike increases.
loaded with an atomic bomb. Sure it might take weeks or months for a ship to pull into port. It doesn't have to be unloaded nor very powerful to shut a port down and cause tremendous local damage but even more economic damage.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
Obama wasn't responsible for a kidnapping. He was responsible for mass murder.
WTF? That's BETTER?
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
The vast majority of comments to this subject are uninformed, emotional, and idealistic. I will not try to address them all, but here are some responses to some of the hyperbole expressed. First, missile defense has been pursued LONG before Reagan ever mentioned it. The US had an active, deployed missile defense system in 1972, and obviously the research and development began long before that. Second, the USSR, and now Russia, also had a missile defense system, and still has one deployed to this day with some 100 interceptors, which is far more than the US has. It encircles Moscow. Third, our missile defense system, with only a couple dozen interceptors is not capable of providing any significant defense against Russian ICBMs and SLBMs, which number in the thousands. The Navy missile defense system, which consists of various versions of the Standard Missile on Aegis ships, is quite capable of late midcourse defense against intermediate range missiles. It is not capable of terminal defense. The Army's THAAD and PAC-3 missile defense systems have been proven in tests time and time again, and are in full production, only limited by available funding. THAAD is capable of both exo and endo atmospheric intercepts. PAC-3 can counter anything flying in the atmosphere at any altitude. It takes literally decades of research, development and testing to bring a missile defense system on line. One cannot wait for a potential enemy to deploy a threat missile to start to develop the defense. Surely even the most stupid people would recognize that, but I see comments like, "Well, Iran doesn't even have an intercontinental missile or nuclear capability, so we don't need to defend against it." Sorry, but whomever said that is a complete idiot. Now, also when we have some kind of deployed system, it also has a residual capability in case of an accidental or unauthorized launch of a missile against the US. What is so bad about that? There is no way to "aim" a missile defense system against an enemy; at most, it can be deployed to preferentially defend against a threat from some geographic region. For example, a system to defend the US against missiles launched from North Korea should be deployed in Alaska and or the west cost of the US. Guess what? They are. The old arguments against missile defense about ease of countermeasures are simply the statements of those opposed to missile defense. And the argument that an enemy could smuggle in a nuclear weapon may or may not be true, but it is an irrelevant red herring. Do you lock your front door when you leave the house? Why bother, an enemy could simply break a window and slip in. We must defend against ALL avenues of attack, and a missile is the single most reliable method for an enemy to deliver an nuke to a target. So far, antimissle systems are not 100% effective. Oppostion based on that is another stupid argument. You've got a system that is 90% effective, meaning that it will stop 90% of the missiles. Would it be better to stop 0%? One nuclear tipped missile will do about 1,000 times as much damage as the terrorists did on 9/11, and I think stopping 9 out of 10 of those missiles is therefore worth it. One argument that is posited frequently is that missile defense is destabilizing, but never offers any justification at all for that position. If both sides have missile defense systems, clearly any missiles accidently or hastily launched would be countered, thereby defusing a potential escalation, which is stabilizing, not destabilizing. I could go on and on, and if anyone cares to offer other thoughts, I'll be glad to comment.
Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
From inside it may look that way. From outside, it looked like a very solid empire for entire Cold War.
It's worth noting that pragmatism is deeply ingrained in our culture. Back in dark ages when crusaders came to "civilize" us, modus operandi was to bury the idols, obey them while knights were here, and when knights left dig the idols out of the ground and keep going about business as usual.
As a result, Finland managed to maintain a very large collection of oral mysticism-related tradition which was later assembled into Kalevala, something that was stomped out in regions that chose to fight (and eventually lost the fight).
It's also worth noting that Finns won the recognition of their abilities to fight off a far more powerful attacker in Winter War of 1939, which showed everyone that even someone with as much tolerance for deaths of his own soldiers as Stalin actually found Finland to be unconquerable without suffering intolerable losses. It's highly unlikely that Germany would choose to actually conquer Finland after WW2, just like USSR chose not to try to annex it due to costs involved being simply too high even for Stalin in second attempt in 1944. Red Army did its biggest assault of the entire war on us, and they still failed to break the line badly enough to force surrender. It just wasn't worth the cost, especially considering that Finns were very much willing to cooperate on many levels with any neighbour.
This attitude on cultural level is something that people native to large empires are actively taught on their own cultural level to frown upon as "cowardly", because such pragmatism makes it difficult for empires to gain as much (ab)use out of the small country. Colonising more pliable, or more combative cultures is much easier, as you can conquer former via diplomatic and trade methods and wage wars to conquer the latter. But pragmatic "work with everyone but stay true to independence and arm yourself for war just in case" approach makes it very difficult to justify either approach and forces aforementioned empires to actually work with target country and negotiate on at least some of the terms of cooperation rather then fully dictate them.
The other country in Europe that chose the same approach is Swizerland. Notably the two of us are the only countries left in Europe with armies based on universal conscription of all young men and a large reserve.
If you read this thread on you will notice that I have a lot to say about both "defending Finland without the help of NATO" which would have just de-facto annexed us as their client state as a payment for such help, as well as Soviet nukes in Finland (notice the location of Leningrad of the maps, and look up how fallout from nuclear weapons works as I mention in the continuation of the thread).
You may argue that from NATO's point of view, nuking of Finnish infrastructure to prevent Soviets from using it against NATO is acceptable and I can understand why such an argument would sound reasonable to a resident of a NATO country. But to people who want nothing to do with allying with either NATO or USSR and have a proven history of beating full on Red Army assault twice against all odds, it would in fact be a very clear-cut "stab in the back".
And please, do remember that Finland is not, and never was a part of NATO or Warsaw Pact. It was and remains and fully independent state that takes great pride on the fact that it survived both times when Germany and USSR divided entire Eastern Europe, including Finland, between each other as well as cold war while sitting both between NATO and USSR and on a very dangerous spot for USSR with our proximity to Leningrad. To use, there is no difference between NATO attacking us and USSR attacking us as an independent state rather then becoming annexed or a client state. In both cases it would be a case of a hostile empire trying to attack and destroy an independent state to protect its interests.
The fundamental problem is that maintaining genuine neutrality is near impossible.
Switzerland for example was guilty of producing military equipment such as bullets which it sold to the Nazi regime, whilst for obvious reasons it couldn't do the same for the allies. A truly neutral position would've been that because they are landlocked by Nazi held or supported territory and can't sell arms to the allies, that they wont sell arms to the Nazis either. The fact they did sell arms to the Nazis makes them complicit in supporting the Nazi regime, and hence has the implicit implication that they support it's war efforts and hence it's policies.
So yes to an extent I believe it is cowardly, maintaining true neutrality would not be cowardly, it would take genuine strength to stand your ground and say "look, we don't support the allies, but that doesn't mean we'll support you either". Selling arms to, or fighting a particular side to save yourselves isn't neutrality, it doesn't mean you're independent - it's abdication of yourselves to the ideas of those you supposedly don't support. It's effectively saying "Look, we'll support your side, if you allow us to maintain the illusion that we're somehow still in control of our own destiny" - the very fact that you have to support them in some way is demonstration enough that your choice is either to abdicate to them and retain that illusion of independence, or just be bluntly conquered by them.
Pragmatism? Only if you have a nationalistic view that protecting the lives of your countrymen is more important than protecting anyone else, whatever the cost. Personally I don't feel I hold any more allegiance to the guy I've never met 3 miles down the road, than the guy I've never met 3000 miles to the east. If my country is doing something unjust, or supporting an unjust cause then I don't see why the guy 3 miles away deserves my protection anymore than the guy 3000 miles away.
Britain had every opportunity to side with the Nazis to retain independence too but it chose a very different option, despite the fact it would've had massive political sway in an Anglo-Nazi alliance and would've actually been able to grow it's empire as a result. It was not for some hope that in pushing the Nazis back it could take the likes of France itself, because it was at a point where it was actually shrinking it's empire, not growing it, so why do you think it put it's people's lives on the line? Why do you think faraway nations like Canada, New Zealand, Australia and so forth also chose to do side with the UK well before even Japan was a perceived threat to them?
You're completely unrealistic when you assume that small countries have such options available. Heck, every single country in this world that survived values lives of its countrymen higher then those of other countries. I present exhibit A: Iraq and exhibit B: Afghanistan as shiny examples. No one cares when hundreds of "darkies" die to shooting and hundreds of thousands die to destroyed infrastructure.
But god forbid one NATO soldier gets threatened to be dragged to a local court for mass murder of local women and children. That cannot be allowed because american lives are naturally far more valuable to US then those of locals. Then we get to talk about the poor sod, his traumas and his wife, and no one cares that many families of "those other guys" just got brutally murdered. It makes a great example of just how different of a value is assigned to a human life depending on what citizenship that person has.
That's the reality. The tribes that did not follow this policy are not around to tell their tale because they have been wiped out by us, those that do follow such policies. By extension, if selling weapons to nazis buys you freedom from annexation, and you do not do it as a leader, you deserve to be tried for treason. And you will be found guilty, because your job as a leader is to ensure that your citizens get the best possible outcome. Not that some distant Russian/Allied soldier doesn't get shot with bullets made by you, because that soldier won't think twice about butchering a dosen of your countrymen if it saved his friend either.
That's how life is. To argue that this is somehow "wrong" is to argue against the very concept of humanity. I suspect your point of view has been indoctrinated into you by your local culture and you come from one of the large empires currently in existence (USA, France, UK, Russia to name a few). Such indoctrination is purposeful to make you believe that you are in fact superior, and that when someone tries to not recognise your superiority and pragmatically survive, as a small entity rather then a competing large empire (which is the requirement for "truly independent" as defined by you - small nations do not have such options) they are viewed by you as cowardly and need to be dealt with accordingly if possible.
Such indoctrination allows for much better soldiers who have far better tolerance to dehumanising their victims when ordered to purge people of the said small country. Again, Iraq and Afghanistan make prime examples of this particular aspect of human nature that comes from being a member of a large imperial society.
"You're completely unrealistic when you assume that small countries have such options available."
What a crock of shite.
Norway stood for what it believe in and fell to the Nazi's, but it's saboteurs were incredibly beneficial to the war effort. I do not see any loss of their culture as a result. They can be rightly proud of what they did and stood for.
Malta managed to survive in the Med even when surrounded by axis opponents and again, the people there were quite rightly recognised as heroes.
But I'm not sure what "small" nations have to do with it, France wasn't small but still fell, despite the fact you list it as one of your supposed empires.
So don't pretend small countries cultures can't survive. On the contrary, even your examples of Afghanistan and Iraq prove the point - despite US invasion then what culture has been whiped out exactly? It's quite the contrary - US forces have been driven back by internal opposition to the point of withdrawl, Afghanistan looks very much like it might still fall to the Taliban because they are continuing to resist. It further demonstrates my point that many of those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan against coalition forces are in fact foreigners - people who believe in the greater good, rather than their own self-interest. Some of those foreigners are from coalition countries themselves, that could quite easily sit enjoying the comfort of Britain, France, or the US, but instead choose to go and fight.
The fact you need to generalise, to believe that anyone else is indoctrinated, that they have a feeling of superiority demonstrates further that you have a rather nationalistic mindset, which is a shame because I've heard it said many a time that Finland suffers from inherent distrust of outsiders, that it can be more hostile to immigrants than many nations, that it's rather xenophobic and everyone else outside must just be wrong. It's a shame you're one of those people who seems to drive that image of your nation.
Really, size has fuck all to do with it, just whether you're more inclined to roll over and let someone walk all over your independence, neutrality, and culture, or if you're willing to fight for those things.
No, the more you go on, the more it appears this is just something Finns have made up to try and reconcile their complicity in supporting the Nazi regime, which is somewhat ironic given that you apparently believe it's everyone else who is misguided and indoctrinated.
Here is a another funny
Obama is responsible for my losing my job, and as a result, my getting my wife pregnant
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
"the Soviets used anthrax in Korea to kill men, women, and children, and then blamed it on the Americans. . . ."
Yeah, now your expose is so much more credible. Thank you so much.
and I spent all my mod points... :(
"Norway stood for what it believe in and fell to the Nazi's, but it's saboteurs were incredibly beneficial to the war effort. I do not see any loss of their culture as a result. They can be rightly proud of what they did and stood for."
Key question that you gloss over: Who's war effort? Theirs was lost. If Allied forces didn't win and liberate them in the end, they would have been like Baltics were during USSR - a small client region inside a large empire struggling to keep its national identity. Norway's approach was a complete failure if you look at it from their own perspective. It was a success if you look at them from standpoint of US/UK citizen because their sacrifices served US/UK cause at the cost of Norway's independence during war and countless Norwegian lives.
Which shows you the depth of your "imperial" mentality: to you, people of small countries are either your nice little boy scouts who are willing to die for your cause, or they're cowards trying to justify why they chose to stand truly independent instead of siding with you or with your enemy fully, in spite of getting a much harder fight on their hands when doing so. Or they are the enemy to be purged for siding with your enemy.
Which is exactly what I was talking about when talking about "imperialist mentality". You do not understand that "Taliban continues to resist" because Taliban represents vast majority of people of Afghanistan. It's an anathema to a person with imperial mind set - that a country they are "liberating" doesn't want to be "liberated".
That's retarded, there's no imperial mentality in respecting a country that stood for what it believed in and paid the highest price doing so. Ultimately it paid off for them because they supported the winning side, their saboteurs did a tremendous job, and despite occupation they lost none of their culture, nor their ability to sabotage. Your view that it's all over if foreigners enter your country is so incredibly nationalistic.
I don't think any Norwegian would call it a failure - protecting their beliefs and cultures, not supporting something they don't believe in like the Nazi regime which the Finns supported. The fight doesn't end when the enemy takes control of your country - the Norwegians demonstrated this, the Polish demonstrated this, the French demonstrated this, and even the Afghans today are demonstrating this.
There's nothing imperialist about a country being on the side of the allies, they were never forced into such a position. I think you need to get a better grasp of what imperialism is because ironically, the Nazi agenda was the most imperialist agenda to the war - and your country bent over and catered to that agenda. If anyone fell to imperialism in World War II out of choice, it was the Finns - the rest of Western Europe fought it.
Your whole argument hinges on the idea that Britain had at the time, a dwindling empire, so it's actions were imperialist, but imperialism requires intervention with the goal of expanding your empire - the only people that did this were the Japanese, the Nazis and then the USSR towards the end of the war. The allies liberated and handed everything back - that's about as far from imperialism as you could possibly get.
I also note you conveniently ignore my other example of Malta too.
"You do not understand that "Taliban continues to resist" because Taliban represents vast majority of people of Afghanistan. It's an anathema to a person with imperial mind set - that a country they are "liberating" doesn't want to be "liberated"."
This runs completely counter to everything I said regarding the Taliban, why are you making things up now? Your argument was that Afghanistan was a demonstration of the things that happen if a country doesn't bow down to imperialist interests and give up on it's independence and culture - I pointed that on the contrary, it's an example of a country that doesn't want to give up it's independence and culture which is precisely why NATO is having such a hard time there and are likely to be pushed out with Afghanistan falling back to largely Taliban influenced control. This is a perfect example of a people standing their ground despite occupation and still coming out with their independence. This is the opposite of what the Finns did in WWII - if the Finns were the Taliban than the equivalent scenario would've been the Taliban rolling over onto their backs and telling the US "Yes Sir, we'll do what ever you want!" - obviously the Taliban haven't done that, the Norwegians didn't do it in WWII, and the Maltese didn't do it in WWII, but that's precisely what the Finns did with the Nazis.
Still, as I said before if you like to do this sort of thing to try and defend your nations weak-willed stance where you gave in to supporting the Nazi regime in World War II then fine, that's upto you. Just don't expect the rest of the world to look positively on you or feel sorry for you over it. I guess national pride is a big thing in Finland and you can't accept you were wrong, which is a shame because it's the only way to learn from the past.
Next time you roll over you may find those you are calling imperialist aren't in a position to defeat those you're rolling over to, which subsequently allowed you to regain true independence. Have fun pretending your stance was a sensible one then when you really don't have any independence and your culture really did get flushed down the drain, all because you didn't think it was worth fighting to defend it and you thought you were being pragmatic by letting someone else walk
Too many holes to poke at to fit into a slashdot post. Let's just agree to disagree, and thanks for hitting a real sore spot with Nokia. One of the big qualms that we (as a nation proud of a company that grew from a small country) had with nokia going from pro-linux to pro-microsoft overnight was that nokia "surrendered".
Which admittedly is ironic.