Slashdot Mirror
Russia Threatens Pre-emptive, Destructive Force On US Missile Defense
suraj.sun sends this quote from an article at the BBC:
"Russia says it is prepared to use 'destructive force pre-emptively' if the U.S. goes ahead with controversial plans for a missile defense system based in Central Europe. The warning came after the Russian defense minister said talks on missile defense were nearing a dead end. Moscow fears that missile interceptors would be a threat to Russia's security. But the U.S. and NATO say they are intended to protect against attacks from Iran or North Korea. 'A decision to use destructive force pre-emptively will be taken if the situation worsens,' chief of the Russian defense staff Gen Nikolai Makarov said. President Barack Obama ... scrapped plans for a network of bases spread across Poland and the Czech Republic with the capacity to intercept long-range missiles. But in 2010, the U.S. signed an agreement with Poland to use an old airstrip at Redzikowo, near the Baltic coast, as a missile defense base."
There goes the planet.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Between all the arrogant saber-rattling over Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, and China, you would think the U.S. not only thinks it can go it alone on everything, but may just stumble like a blind fool right into a world war.
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Let's see how the US likes pre-emptive strikes against its stuff.
Signed,
The world
Please let it happen before the end of 2012, otherwise all those Mayan calculations that the world will end in this year will go to waste... :p
Moscow fears that missile interceptors would be a threat to Russia's security
Neutralising Russia's offensive capability is a "threat" to Russia. Stopping them from harming other people is a "threat" now.
Why are we spending our money and resources defending Europe, again?
Isn't Europe all grown up now? It can take care of itself, and install its own missile defence systems if it wants them.
... or is Putin getting crazier as he gets older? Is he heading down the mad old dictator route of many past soviet general secretaries?
Perhaps the west should carry out a pre-emptive strike on all those russian arms shipments to various unpleasent regimes around the planet (yes I know the west is hardly squeeky clean in that regard too but the russians well sell to pretty much anyone with a big enough wallet).
Not sure what we'd do without it....
Do you have ESP?
They could just invoke a Russian equivalent of the Bush doctrine and attack now.
This is weird on so many levels.
So - what's really going on here?
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
If missile defense is truly to protect against rogue states, why not ask Russia to cooperate on a join defense system that can protect the US, NATO alliance nations and Russia? It seems that bilateral cooperation would go a long way toward easing fears that we're trying to weaken Russia's position, and I would imagine such an extensive missile defense network would make rogue ballistic launches significantly less threatening on the international stage.
oh, BBC news ...
Is this 1980? What the hell does Russia care about...anything?
FFS. I realize this is 'stuff that matters', but the ratio of News for Nerds to Stuff that Matters has gone from about 90:10 to 10:90
Suggestion for the next slashdot poll: Should CmdrTaco be forced, at gunpoint if necessary, to resume his editorship of Slashdot?
This is a repost of the beginnings of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Just with Poland and the Czech Republic instead of Turkey.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
If we are serious about using this system to stop nuclear war through ballistic missiles, then let them have it. Sure, the info will trickle down to the secondary and tertiary nuclear powers, but it will have created another design hurtle.
Unless it's trivial to trick the system. In which case, our government should have cut its losses a long time ago but, like the idiot humans who comprise the system, are suckers for the sunk cost fallacy.
Dear fucking idiot: The defense shield has always been to defend North America, not Europe. Have you not read the news at any point in the last 5 yrs? And if not, why comment on something you don't know about?
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I remember reading an insightful remark, years ago, on CNN.com from some high-ranking DoD official. He said the Cold War was World War 3. He went on to say the fight against Islamic extremism is World War 4, which is more questionable (the scope and scale of the conflict is much less than any other World War).
So the U.S. has already stumbled into World Wars III and IV, and is now going for WWV! I guess WWII turned out so well for us, our leaders are eager to repeat the experience.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
let's not piss off the ruskies... I mean... the entire world doesn't like us already, and threatening someone's military in any way could be construed as an (pre-emptive) act of war.
Can't we get some people in office who will straighten things out by giving answers and not politician rhetoric?
âoeThose who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves.â â George Gordon Byron
They must know more than everyone else.
russia must have plans to attack europe and the proposed polish base would mess them up.
russian missles to parts of europe would travel over poland.... but russian ICBMs aimed at north america would go NORTH over great circle routes (shortest distance), NOT over europe.
___
a polish base could protect the US from future ICBM attacks from the middle east (read: iran)... but not from north korea or china... it would, however, help protect parts of europe from missiles originating from those two countries.
and, finally the typical anti-ballistic surface-to-air missile won't have the range to hit much of anything important in russia (if it had ground attack capabilities and if it could even get that far in the first place)
We have now received the first open promise of a military strike against a US military base by our former cold war opponent and current occasional ally as a result of a military doctrine pushed by Obama and Clinton. This is not only unprecedented, but a gross mis-interpretation on foreign policy by this administration. Please wait. Iran is another red herring among many red herrings in the fields of military, economics, jobs, stimulus by this administration. Zero focus on proven traditional ways to improve all those things., Private investment volume. Lower deficits, lower tax rates (whatever the net revenue).
JJ
You yanks keep ignoring the fact that people in those countries actually don't want your missiles stationed there.
It took many years and many threats (some of which were documented fairly well) to other *friendly nations* in order to finally get "approval" from corrupt governments, to place missiles in their countries. And people don't want that.
For example, since 2007 (earlier, actually), there have been promises and calls for referendum in Poland.
It still didn't happen.
Are you still going to pretend how US government are the "good guys"?
and an offensive strike is simply defensive.
Gently reply
Dear fucking idiot: The defense shield has always been to defend North America, not Europe. Have you not read the news at any point in the last 5 yrs? And if not, why comment on something you don't know about?
And of course the French showed they were a bunch of pacifist pansies when it came to toppling Gaddafi.
It has nothing to do with the USSR.
Russia has a history of being invaded and the paranoia is deeply embedded in the psyche of her peoples and leaders. They've had a very long history long before the USSR existed.
Secondly, it's about power and her leaders wanting to continue to appear to be a World military power - not only to the rest of the World but also for her peoples.
If Europe and the US were smart, they'd would include Russia in on the defense. After all it is in their interests too to defend against N. Korea and any Middle Eastern threats - even the broken states that they back themselves (Syria). If Europe is attacked, Russia's very lucrative gas and other energy franchises would go down in flames.
Russia should be on board with this. Europe's security is their's also and they need to realize that this isn't the 18th or 19th or even early 20th century. They can be a valuable force in World peace and stability if they (and the US for that matter) would give up this illusionary dichotomy of World power structure.
This is kind of like the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
It's "the US" this and that. Before, it was "Bush" who got all the negative comments. Nobody wants to blame warmongering on Obama.
It may not happen today, or this year, but it will happen some day. As crazy as the world is today, and knowing the nature of humans, world destruction is coming.
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
Will it advance another minute due to this?
the Doomsday Clock is incremented. Since of course if Russia does this it will probably involve nukes.
After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
No, they know Americans believe this thing actually works.
Remember, MAD only keeps countries from starting a war if they all know about it. If US leaders convince itself they can attack Russia or China safely, eventually US will attack Russia or China. To be honest, I am surprised how religious nuts in Bush administration didn't start a nuclear war -- they believed, God protects the US.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Hey Mark, turn off FB on US and Russia till they friends up.
Ppl QQing their Govs. will be all the force you need.
Here's what they know: The US (specifically, that well-known liberal peacenik Richard Nixon) signed a treaty in 1972 specifically saying that nobody was allowed to do anti-ballistic missile defense, specifically so that there would always be a MAD scenario if somebody decided to strike. Then George W Bush basically told the Russians to go to hell and that the US was ignoring the treaty. Then they spent a lot of time and money trying to improve their anti-ballistic missile defense. Now Barack Obama is deploying anti-ballistic missile defense right near Russia's border.
Another way of thinking about it: Would you be fine with $EVIL_EMPIRE deploying missile defense in Cuba, Mexico, and Canada?
I get the joke, but the fact that the US is deploying it suggests that they think they have something useful.
I am officially gone from
Dear fucking idiot: The defense shield has always been to defend North America, not Europe.
And that's why it's in eastern Europe and not northern Canada.
Dear fucking idiot: the earth is round.
Are they threatening to shoot missiles at our missile defense? Really? I almost want to see how well that goes for them. How many missiles will they go through before they figure it out?
Additionally, I am quite surprised, no shocked really, that Russia would have so little respect for the sovereignty of Poland! Given the long history of these two countries relationship and past cooperation I, um, oh yeah, nevermind...
If you don't think this system works, you're more delusional than the Russians.
I don't know anything about Russian politics, but is it not possible this is mostly posturing for domestic russian politics?
Also likely that it's a valid concern about the US trying to achieve military dominance over Russia by dismantling the "Mutually" in MAD.
As a side note, I hate the simplicity of "CountryX says" when countries cannot speak.
It was chief of the Russian defence staff Gen Nikolai Makarov who said this, not 'Russia.' Maybe this chief of Russian defence might have political reasons for spewing strong rhetoric about Russia's military defense.
Yeah... North Korea? I'm going to have to go ahead and ask you to fire your missiles so they pass over Poland first, okay? That'd be great....
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Defend North America from imaginary Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles, and at the same time from Russian ICBMs. I totally get them in this issue. USA withdrew unilaterally from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. What kind of politics is that? Why the hell destabilize a perfectly good relationship because of some imaginary threat? USA truly is the largest threat to this planet.
There would be absolutely no strategic value to a Russian missile defense system in Cuba and Venezuela, not unless the United States wanted to launch a couple primitive SCUD-like missiles at those countries. What the Russians don't want is an American military presence in Central Europe. They want Poland to be in their sphere of influence like in the good old days, and they see this as a move into their territory. They themselves know that a missile defense system will be no threat to their defensive or offensive capabilities.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
This would be all over front page news 24/7 ..every day...the memo and narrative on TV & newspapers - everywhere calling Bush
1 - A war monger
2 - More Blood for Oil
3 - To get revenge for his Daddy....
4 - Because he hates blacks
5 - Because he hates hispanics
6 - Member of Skull & Bones
7 - Dont mess with Texas
8 - Because he's stupid (disregard his masters degree)
Add yours below...
...or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb the other day and this kind of reminds me of it. At least in here, they are wise enough to not forget to tell people about their intentions. It seems people do learn from mistakes, or movies for that matter.
Read: I believe everything my government tells me, everyone else is a fool.
Many posters seem to ignore that the difference between "offensive" and "defensive" missile systems are nothing but marketing.
Having USA missiles stationed anywhere in Eastern Europe is a threat both to Europe (because those missile stations will be first or retaliation strike targets) as well as a threat to Russia AND Europe because they can easily be used for offensive purposes, and being stationed that close almost impossible to intercept.
How would the USA feel about Russian missiles stationed in Mexico close to the border?
And that radar can receive radar signals. From a long way inside Russia.
Now, how do you think the USA would feel with a USSR intel warship sitting off NYC or Washington, listening in?
Wait, they took this idea straight out of Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove, didn't they?
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
What I find really scary about nuclear weapons is how little it takes to bring on nuclear winter and world wide famine. Russia could still destroy everyone by nuking themselves. Just 50 nukes could kick up enough dust that crops would not get enough sunshine for at least 7 years. Even Pakistan could have enough nukes to pull that off. Bit difficult to intercept that.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
The US (specifically, that well-known liberal peacenik Richard Nixon) signed a treaty in 1972 specifically saying that nobody was allowed to do anti-ballistic missile defense, specifically so that there would always be a MAD scenario if somebody decided to strike. Then George W Bush basically told the Russians to go to hell and that the US was ignoring the treaty.
I thought treaties has the same force as the US Constitution:
Article VI
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
So is this another case where right-wingers wave the constitution, and then use it as toilet paper?
They already have them there. Just like we have listening posts and ships off their coasts near their naval bases and other strategically important locations.
No, they know Americans believe this thing actually works.
Remember, MAD only keeps countries from starting a war if they all know about it. If US leaders convince itself they can attack Russia or China safely, eventually US will attack Russia or China. To be honest, I am surprised how religious nuts in Bush administration didn't start a nuclear war -- they believed, God protects the US.
It is rare for a person to get to the level of education that whitehouse staff do and believe in a litteral, activist god. Bush might have been an exception, but the people around him were not.
I wonder if "destructive pre-emtive force" means exactly what we initially think.
Perhaps the Russians are hinting of something more subtle, a stuxnet style attack on the systems there.
Of course, I'm not suggesting for one moment they could actually pull it off...
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
So yeah, Russia has enough missiles that they can trivially overwhelm any missile defense shield if it comes to all-out global war. And any nuclear war between the US and Russia will be global. So why do they care about this?
Maybe they're trying to provide some muscle for their friends. Russia is on very good terms with Iran, and stands to gain if the US gets entangled in conflicts with other small nuclear nations. So maybe they've got a deal: Iran gives Russia favorable trade deals, Russia waves its military dick around for Iran's benefit.
All of these analogies to Russia putting a missile defense base in Cuba or Mexico are completely bogus.
PROTIP: There are no ballistic missiles in South America to defend against legitimately, so that goes out the fucking window pretty quick.
If Venezuela or Columbia had IRBMs or MRBMs to speak of, and Russia said 'we are setting up defenses in Cuba to protect our communist brothers' it would be an equitable comparison. But please, stop the mindless defense and rationalization of this brinkmanship.
Unquestionably, the United States must now build a limited missile defense system whether the Russians like it or not, since the suicide theologies have created entirely new rows and columns in the threat and response array. But we claim that this system is limited, inoffensive, and vulnerable to being overwhelmed by the major powers so that MAD is preserved.
Solution: we share our anti-missile technology with the Russians and support on-site Russian observers to verify these facts.
Good job USA, You have sucessfully invited Tiger inside of house, to get rid of cat...
Nothing.
I8-D
The ABM Treaty was signed between with the USSR - not Russia. The USSR no longer exists. We're free to do as we please. But feel free to continue to ignore history as it suits your anti-American narrative. I'm sure it has nothing to do with Russia trying to keep it's old sphere of influence.
This is like your crazy, felonious neighbor saying it's unfair for you to lock your doors so they'll just break into your window.
ITT: self-hating libtards blame America for everything
They used to big shots and now cannot bear thought of being second tier power. Their reactions are childish.
Here's what they know: The US (specifically, that well-known liberal peacenik Richard Nixon) signed a treaty in 1972 specifically saying that nobody was allowed to do anti-ballistic missile defense, specifically so that there would always be a MAD scenario if somebody decided to strike. Then George W Bush basically told the Russians to go to hell and that the US was ignoring the treaty. Then they spent a lot of time and money trying to improve their anti-ballistic missile defense. Now Barack Obama is deploying anti-ballistic missile defense right near Russia's border.
Another way of thinking about it: Would you be fine with $EVIL_EMPIRE deploying missile defense in Cuba, Mexico, and Canada?
I get the joke, but the fact that the US is deploying it suggests that they think they have something useful.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but the treaty signed by Nixon was with the USSR, a sovereign state
that no longer exists, ergo, the treaty is no longer valid on its face?
Umm... Rumsfeld? Cheney? Rice? Ashcroft? While I agree that other administrations were not much better overall, his combination of religious nuts and ideological warmongers still stands out.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Off the coast, hell. In every embassy and likely every consulate on the planet. Not just our embassies, everybody's. The Russians, the Brits, everybody. Even the Canadians. It's one of those things that everybody does, but nobody talks about, like headquartering the local CIA/KGB/etc station chief in an embassy.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Some things never change. When Kennan described the containment approach, his analysis surmised that Soviet policy was in fact driven by rival factions within the Kremlin, where each had to appear more expansionist, more hard-core, just to remain in a position of power *within* the Soviet Union.
Seems to be still going on in Russia.
In military planning, intentions count for nothing. The Russians would never trust our statements about our intentions and, heck, neither would we if these were Russian installations. We don't even trust the British.
The government has not said that, therefore you are a dumb tinfoil hatter. You probably also believe that the government was behind 9/11 and that Bin Laden was a CIA agent. Only a fucking fool would question his government or not believe the official story. Why would the US government ever lie to its citizens or engage in false flag operations? WOULD NEVER HAPPEN.
The defense shield is exactly what Obama has said it is. GTFO conspiracy theorist.
Against the intended threat (a small number of missiles from Iran or North Korea), it does work sufficient to the task. (That is, not 100%, but enough to give them pause about the chances of a successful attack.*) Putin is afraid because he's let the Russian missile forces deteriorate to the point where even that modest defense is (or soon will be) sufficient to blunt a Russian attack as well.
*Which from a strategic point of view is all that is needed.
There are lots of potential reasons for their actions on both sides of the equation: Maybe the US really does want to protect against attacks, or maybe they want to continue their march to becoming the world government. Maybe Russia feels it won't be needed anymore by its allies if the Americans are protecting them instead. etc... I've no idea.
Gosh, who would have guessed! Obviously someone is overspending MASSIVELY three times!
I think the ABM technology only has the ability to shoot down the missiles on their way back down, not on their way up or when they're essentially in low earth orbit. By that logic an installation in Europe would be there to protect our assets and allies in Europe.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
"Meh. No biggie. We'll put the money towards education and healthcare. Maybe build a better train system. It's all good."
... please read the news.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
"A decision will be taken to do such-and-such" does not mean the same thing as "we will do such-and-such". It's more like "we will think about considering the possibility of pondering the question of whether we should form a committee to examine the potential for doing such-and-such".
Fun fact, no one actually believes in God. If they did they'd do lots of dangerous but fun things confident that if they die they'll got to a better place.
Maybe they are closer to Catholicism -- believe that no matter how hard they try, they will still go to Hell because it take a saint to truly avoid sin?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
To keep the military industrial gravy train running. Nothing more, nothing less.
Russia accepted international obligations of USSR, including treaties.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
And this will be the card Russia plays. It can now retaliate by withdrawing from treaties to make things uncomfortable for the US. It can withdraw from ICBM / START treaties. It could start selling nuclear technology, or more advanced weapons, to countries it has previously withheld them from. With its security council seat it can simply veto any US initiative at the UN. They could simply declare Iran as under their umbrella, and that's the end of any threat to Iran. Breaking the back of the US economy by forcing military spending would be a delicious irony for the Russians.
Article VI
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
So is this another case where right-wingers wave the constitution, and then use it as toilet paper?
Note that "This Constitution" and "Laws of the United States" are also in there, with no stated order of precedence. That sentence is about federal supremacy over state governments, not settling the precedence amongst those three, so no, it's really not.
Russia can be responsible for Iran/NK. If they attack, it can retaliate, or face retaliation from the target and its allies, mainly US.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
The United States Foreign policy is easy to understand. It can be summed up in one sentence: Prevent any regional power from becoming a global power. That's it. The way it does this is by supporting small countries that are under the threat of being sucked into the spheres of influence of regional powers. Hence Pakistan vs India, Iraq vs Iran, Japan and Taiwan and the Philippines vs China, the former Soviet Republics and Central Europe vs Russia.
This system went a little fubar in the Middle East because in the 1990s Iraq decided that instead of fighting Iran it would pick on smaller countries, so that it could be the big regional power. Since no one in the region could fight both Iraq and Iran, the United States had to go in itself and try to fix things directly. It didn't work as smoothly as planned, but things seldom do when you resort to war.
The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
Against North Korea it doesn't work because it's on the opposite side of the Earth. There is also a rather important detail that North Korea has no ICBMs in the first place. But most important, the given explanation is based on nothing but xenophobia -- it claims that there are governments (somewhere -- anywhere) literally full of madmen who intend to sacrifice themselves and whole population of their countries for a chance to kill some Americans.
It's obvious that missile defense is supposed to be against other countries that have nuclear weapons and ICBMs, and that US will eventually have disagreements with -- Russia, China, India, possibly even other European countries that will try to leave NATO.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The US almost certainly has got first strike plan. There is nothing to guarantee a POTUS in the future won't try to use such first strike ability combined with missile defense to defend agaisnt retaliation. no guaranteee at all. So all those people saying "the US would not do that, we are freedom loving, epaceful beatnik blahblahblah" are compeltely ignoring that the situation can change from a year to the next (or from an election from the next) with a policy switching to offensive on a whim. And I can't imagine the US army staff at high level being so stupid as not recognizing the first strike possibility a missile defense system opens, and the fact that they are STILL going on that way, while doing absolutely NADA to assuage Russia clearly tell a more sinister story : they are perfectly aware and desire that first strike ability...
I've been saving bottlecaps, maybe I'll have more luck in the post-apocalyptic economy.
I don't see what Trayvon Martin or the Samsung Galaxy S III have to do with this...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
The only winning move is not to play.
sudo make me a sandwich
The missile defense system was nonsensical when GWB was still in charge. Now we elected someone else (or so we thought) and we are keeping to the same bad plans.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Dear fucking idiot Makarov: don't you know our missile defense systems don't even work?
insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
Now, how do you think the USA would feel with a USSR intel warship sitting off NYC or Washington, listening in?
Rightfully terrified of these time-traveling soviets
Oh cool, we are getting our old, trusted, loved boogieman back! Just in time for the Terrist Mooslim to be retired as the archetype bad guy. The Powers That Be must have realized it was safer working with Russia to keep the citizens in fear. The Taliban approach was cheaper, but was much harder to manage. Russia will cost more, but is more predictable.
So hopefully we'll start getting some good old school Megadeth songs again! (Although the last one was pretty good...)
By some measures, the U.S. government is the most violent that has ever existed.
>Another way of thinking about it: Would you be fine with $EVIL_EMPIRE deploying missile defense in Cuba, Mexico, and Canada?
Absofragginlutely!
If they are non-nuclear anti-missle defense than put those things **everywhere** as far as I am concerned. The less capability ANY country has for successfully launching a nuclear ICBM the better ! That goes for Russia, China, the freaking U S of A and everyone else.
No nukes is good nukes.
----- In Your Cubicle No One Can Hear You Scream...
The treaty was signed with a nation that no longer exists. There is no USSR. The Russian Federation doesn't inherit everything from the USSR any more than any of the other former members do. That Russia were the big oppressors within the USSR is of no consequence.
It is an interesting case in international law and I'm certainly not claiming it is 100% cut and dried but that being the case neither you nor Russia can say it is cut and dried that they automatically inherit any treaties the US signed with the USSR. Also since there is no international supreme court with final jurisdiction, the interpretation comes down to the nations. The US's lawyers looked over the law and said "The US is not bound by this treaty, it stopped existing when the USSR did."
I like how, for all the hype about Cyber-[whatever], everyone is assuming that Russia would have a purely physical response. As opposed to something like "If you put up that missile defense, we'll hack your internets and make the Californian energy crisis of 200-01 look like New Years Eve. Just a guess, but did you put that missile defense system on the internet too?"
Even just one Stuxnet-copycat would do. Considerable plausible deniability while demonstrating the vulnerability of some now-critical infrastructure.
Staff, yeah, maybe even their top advisors, but that doesn't stop an idiot that looks good on TV from getting elected. El Presidente is pretty much a meat puppet position these days with half a dozen hands up his ass fighting for control. As long as he knows when to smile for the cameras and parrot the Party line, he's golden.
Of course, that doesn't stop the staffers from having agendas of their own, and in their position, they have the power and influence to 'make it so'.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Good for them. Doesn't mean anybody else's obligations to the USSR outlived it.
Last I looked the Warsaw pact is no longer required to defend Russia.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Russia is a pretty cool guy. He stands up to the U.S. and doesn't afraid of anyone.
Sounds like a case of an old celebrity trying to get back into the limelight. Now where have I seen that before?
WTF are you americans doing building missiles in our europe while we all are getting rid of them, fuck off!
Now we're going to fight over defensive weapons? The simple answer is to sell Russia some of the defensive missiles so they will not feel threatened by them. Yes they'll get our technology but at least they paid for it. If we don't sell it they'll steal it anyway.
For almost 50 years we lived under threat of instant vaporization. Both NATO and Soviets assumed that opponent army reinforcements will be stopped at Vistula line by tactical nuclear strike. Revealed war plans assumed that two million Poles will die in such strike and most parts of central Poland will become useless, radioactive wasteland for a number of years. Here in Poland we were trained how to survive nearby nuclear strike on a regular basis.
Things changed in 1990, when Cold War was finally over. Everyone became a friend. Some we liked some more [Americans] than others [Russians] for obvious reasons but it didn't really matter much.
Now, after 20 years of relative safety some psychotic US leader came here and started messing around with their 'anti-missile' shit. Arms race is back. Let assume that they'll install a system that will intercept 50% of russian missiles. Rational response I would expect from Russian is to have, say, twice as many nuclear tipped missiles they have now. I know this, Russians know this. Psychotic US politicians know this as well. So we have to live once again under threat of (instant) vaporization just because some dysfunctional psychopaths who happen to have too much power in their hands decided to pursue their geopolitical games. Having seen how these games have played out in, say, Middle East I'm really scared. Various "developments" since 2001 made me confident that United States will spark 3-rd world war sooner or later. I was hoping that in all the mess between US, Russia, China and Middle East - Poland will become a kind of place everyone forgot about, so we'll be relatively safe. Now I'm losing that hope - some whilte collar fucks along with our local puppet government placed us back into spotlight.
My message to US politicians and millitary: get the fuck out of here NOW. Take your anti-ballistic toys with you and shove them deep into your ass. You killed millions of people in the Middle East, destroyed so many countries. We don't want you to pursue the same psychotic games in Poland.
Regards,
Citizen od Poland.
There will be plenty of Engineering and Support jobs for the Defense Industry in the USA and Russia. It's a win/win!
Maybe we;ll actually get funding for a USA mission to Mars! Why.. because we want to be first again.
I think competition driven by Super Power Rivalry is good for the Economy.
Having actually researched the treaty in question many years ago, let me clarify a few things. The treaty has an out clause. No penalties. Just give due notice, wait a year, and the treaty is void. Nearly every apartment lease is tougher to get out of.
It also permits a limited ABM system. Both sides deployed them.
The treaty had limitations on radar deployment that were obsolete. Every wonder why we don't have a centralized radar system for commercial aircraft? Because we weren't allowed to build one. Inertial means now we're stuck with crap.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I don't know where you get the idea that the US keeps it's "first strike" nukes in Europe.
The US long ago (20+ years) removed the IRBM and GLCM from Europe, as part of IRNFT in 1988. Since then, the US nuclear presence in Europe has been limited to gravity bombs (which, most certainly, AREN'T first strike weapons). And, we're not even sure that the US still keeps those bombs active, as the US firmly refuses to "confirm or deny" their presence.
The US's current first-strike capable weapons are the Trident II D5 missiles on the Ohio class subs, and the Minuteman III ICBMs in the central US. Neither of which are anywhere near Europe or the proposed missile defense system.
-Erik
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
When you're facing fanatics that want to die killing you so that they have an automajix ticket punch to paradise, don't project your logical Western mores on them. Unfortunately, the best way to deal with them is to give them what they want but on their turf as to not sully yours.
This is the best example of why we need a Ronaldus Magnus as POTUS rather than a Zer0bama. What a stark contrast as compared to 'TEAR THIS WALL DOWN"!
Actually, each side was going to built one for their Capitol and one for their ICBMs (1972 ABM Treaty). The Russians built one for Moscow. Ours was being built at Grand Forks AFB in North Dakota. Each side agreed to keep only one site (the Russians exposing their ICBMs while the US left Washington undefended) in the 1974 agreement. George W Bush withdrew in 2002. The US site was deactivated after 4 months in 1976. The Russians still have theirs (it has been updated once or twice) [ICBMs and SLBMs were the missiles that were the intended ABM targets and were under the control of the treaties - theater level weapons could still be targeted by each side]
The Russians have an operation ABM system. The treaty does not disallow them. It's a matter of number of launchers (100), the definition of a launcher (do the SM-3s count, etc), and placement of radar systems. The only point in which the US *may* be violating the treaty is with the last one, but it's debatable and many would say the Russians have already violated it with their ABM radar.
Th New York was nearly destroyed by a bunch of shepherds with box-cutters.
Nuclear devices were miniaturized into small suitcase still in 80s. This is what really dangerous.
Why spend energy and money on past threats. II would suggest instead to cooperate on co-development. It is impossible to have the empire of prosperity in the ocean of misery.
Instead of spending billions on petty quarrel MCCain and Putin could assist in earnest people in hot dry parts.
Let me point to a few things:
1. An harsh lesson Russia got from the past - During 1940-41 USSR allowed a seemingly silent buildup of what we would call today a "potential adversary". Things went little by little. First was "pacifying Poland", then some "security measures" there and there, after all this was one, two, three and more divisions adding up at the border. And even when airplanes where clearly violating soviet airspace, Stalin would strictly forbid any reactions. Supposedly, he didn't want to give "reasons" for the Reich to harden its stance towards USSR. Well, in June 22, 1941 all reasons where off the table.
2. Russia does have an historical rivalry with Poland and not only. And Poland and the "not only" also have a long historical rivalry. Apart of the egg and chicken question, it is clear that a third party messing around would rise not only the tempers, but also create an imbalance that will used by some to get more strategic leverage. Naturally, there will be reactions. Which will be met with counter-reactions, specially by the third party as it becomes here a new player. Now tell me where this all will lead us to?
3. The arguments of missile defense are technically silly - Defend the West from Iranian missiles? Ok let's suppose I swallow that one. Now, what tells you that a battery of missiles in Poland will be able to counter a ballistic missile sent from Isfahan? It depends a lot where the #@$@ missile is going to and surely a Pole battery will not make a great service to the European Union. Yes, we have now Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey for the "umbrella", however, it makes me wonder why all should have started with Poland.
4. The arguments of missile defense are ridiculously silly - North Korea? Give me a break... These guys cannot even put a show for a launch right.
5. The arguments of missile defense are just silly - Why not do it in the Middle East and Persian Gulf? The best way to stop a missile is to catch it at start. Even catching it at middle course will be huge problem due to debris. And catching it at terminal course will just give a more desirable way to catch a lot of hot trash on its own yard. So logically and rationally, the best way is the start or even a bit before that. Or, the US has not enough allies in the Persian Gulf?
6. Russia has a very advanced missile defense system. However, even they have doubts on its effectiveness under a major conflict. Now the US shows up at their backdoor and drops a few stone-age sticks, claiming they will protect the World. How do you think Russian will react to that?
7. What does make Russians real mad is not the anti-missiles per se. They are quite confident they can wipe them out even before Washington says "A..." What makes them real real mad is what goes behind all these "little" steps that the US has taken for the last 12 years. And of which, the BMD is just a piece of the puzzle. There are a few others, but most of them are either not so Top FOUO or don't get so much publicity. And when you gather all these pieces, well, one gets really pissed off. First because it strikingly reminds what I wrote in 1. Second, because some the guys who gave it the first boost... Were colleagues/descendents of the same who did it in 1941!
And after this you think Russia doesn't have a reason to go top furious?
The americans will find a way to be prepared to pre-emptively address the pre-emptive attacks pre-emptively.
The US has a great arsenal of pre-emptivelies, and history shows they know how to use them. Before they use them. Because they are pre-emptivelies.
Canadians are also North Americans. _
But they don't need no shields. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police can catch those pesky missiles. With their horses.
The Mayans may have been right after all.. No matter what the outcome, this cant end well. Now that the threats have been made someone really big has to back down, or start a war.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The ABM Treaty was signed between with the USSR - not Russia. The USSR no longer exists.
Russia is a legal successor to the USSR - recognized as such by UN - in most foreign matters, including e.g. debts and other financial obligations, and, yes, treaties.
That said, it doesn't matter. ABM was not a perpetual treaty, either side could always withdraw. The point is that the treaty existed for a purpose, and both US and USSR agreed that it was an important purpose. Then, all of a sudden, US withdraws. Of course this is not going to garner any goodwill in Russia.
is saber rattling for power. Creating fear among the populace that he screwed over.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
A trade union... Look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union)
Are you an idiot? Treaties with USSR are the origin of many, many limitations on both US and Russia's military policies. If US declared them all invalid or broken all of them, Russia would have to do many seriously unpleasant things for US, so if it was the case, they would have to re-sign them just to keep things sane. The whole point is that US didn't try to do any of that except suddenly decided to break one such treaty.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Just 50 nukes could kick up enough dust that crops would not get enough sunshine for at least 7 years
Didn't we explode hundreds of nuclear test weapons all over the world? I think the local effects of nuclear war would be horrific, but the planet as a whole wouldn't even bat an eye and would be back to normal in a few decades. Nuclear winter was cold war FUD designed to keep us (and the USSR) from actually going through with the crazy. There is a lot of criticism and debate over the accuracy of the nuclear winter hypothesis.
Yep, missile "shield". Another glorious neocon SHIT-MAGNET!
From the great minds of the liberators of Iraq, Afghanistanm Libya, etc...
It's OK, Obama will have "more flexibility" after the election to deal with Missile defense. World War III anyone?
Just 50 nukes could kick up enough dust that crops would not get enough sunshine for at least 7 years.
Good news everyone! Our military scientists have just discovered an off-the-shelf technological solution to global warming!
Over 600 comments and no Soviet Russia jokes yet? This must not be Slashdot...
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
In essence what Russia is saying is that they will attack the West if the West makes any attempt to protect itself from attack. Spoken like a coward.
My understanding is that Russia could trivially overwhelm anything but a completely sky-saturating missile defence, which one defence base isn't. So why the hysterics from the Russians, this isn't useful against anything but rogue states. I'd be more understanding if there were a string of hundreds of them being built.
The missile defense shield has exactly one purpose: mopping up as much as possible of any retalliatory strikes with whatever is left of the Russian missiles after a successful first strike on them.
The nuclear arsenal is of limited political value as it is right now, because any threat is balanced with an equivalent counter threat from their arsenal. When you change the equation in a way that nukes could be used in a first strike with strongly limited repercussions, its threat once again gains you political leverage.
Rogue states are not the target here. Their precious few nukes are extremely valuable to them in an unexploded form, but lose all of their value once exploded. They don't have ICBMs and a satelite guidance network, and if a rogue organisation did plan a nuclear attack, they use a more fail safe and accurate delivery system such as a truck, airplane or ship.
Someone decided to bloody the Seppo's noses.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Thought the cold war was over. Really Russia Actually thinks another country actually wants to control it or its neighbors, ROFL Hell Russia doesn't even have control of itself or its neighbours... I think their Ego is over inflated over some land they deem much to valuable.
The Country that couldn't hold their own lil Soviet Empire together? Meh...
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Why is it that Russia feels it to be such a high priority to be able to completely destroy another countries population? they should be ashamed of themselves to be able to say that.
We respect those because they still make geopolitical sense. Answer me. Is Poland still required to defend Russia if Russia is attacked? Is Georgia? Is Germany now bound by the treaties signed by E. Germany? Many other USSR treaties are now invalid.
Are you an idiot?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Russia is a legal successor to the USSR - recognized as such by UN -
It makes SO much sense to grant a multi-national conglomerate sovereignty over the Constitution. Your ignorance just made me laugh.
The UN recognition mattered only insofar as any international treaties signed by USSR remained binding on Russia, and also in that Russia retained Soviet seat on the Security Council.
US did not have to recognize the succession just because the UN did so. But US did recognize said transfer by acknowledging that all Soviet debts and other financial obligations were transferred to Russia - you can't recognize the transfer of a duty implying succession without recognizing succession itself.
'First Strike' has been a worthless concept since the 60's thanks to the nuclear submarine, there is no advantage in the 'First Strike'.
Yes but we did it with a goal of NOT putting that much dirt in the air. Specifically designed detonations of weapons would most certainly have the ability to seriously screw up everyone.
Read a little about the detonation scenarios for nuclear war and it becomes clear, they understand that if the goal is to deny a very big place. Buried weapons can work very well. Typically such scenarios are under the label of 'scorched earth tactics' and never considered useful. Its the reason they never went ahead with any of the 'nukes to make big holes for civil engineering' type projects. If Russia wanted to wrap the globe in nuclear winter. It has the capacity to do so without a single rocket.
Nuclear scorched earth tactics can scale up in a big way and were all cactus if anyone tried them. How about gently melting a few nukes down under the Antarctic ice. Note the word melt, not drill, melting can be rather quiet and unlikely to be noticed seismically. Shift the entire west antarctic ice shelf perhaps? even part of it would work well given estimates of its likely runaway melting behavior. That would be an approximate 3m sea level rise. Several countries gone, and potential deniability if they wanted to be REAL dicks about how they played the game. It sounds like a stupid Bond movie plot, who would believe they actually did it?
Not to mention the good old fashioned bury the nukes where they will kick up the most dirt, plan.
XML - A clever joke would be here if
us is just looking to create another target away from themselves to keep the war industry generating revenues. Lord knows they have no clue how to do anything else but start conflicts.