1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Russia: A State of Extreme Paranoia?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by amadeus, Jun 3, 2007.

  1. Tee Kay

    Tee Kay Just a passenger

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,833
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    What if China deploy one of their system in Cuba or Mexico? I bet the US would be acting the way Russia is acting right now.
     
  2. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    Does China have any anti-ballistic system? No.
    Are there any rogue states threatening China in the region? No.

    Stop making such pointless suggestions and focus on the point.

    Countries like Iran and NK pose a danger. Perhaps not immediate but potential and very real threat. The logical step is to develop a defense, that will provide some protection.

    This isn't about Russia. Russia has no reason to feel threatened, AND THEY KNOW THAT.
     
  3. Ramius75

    Ramius75 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,218
    Location:
    Sing City
    ya, so its pretty obvious that when USA decided to place the missile defence, they have thought of all the possible sites and determine that having them near Russia is actually the most practical and efficient.

    I wont blame the Russian for being paranoid also as its a case of, u know, i know, they know, everybody knows.

    I had a feeling that the Chinese knows also and had secretly increase the number of missiles they have and upgraded their weapons.
     
  4. King Alexander

    King Alexander Universe explorer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Thessaloniki, Hellas
    Actually, that's NOT the "most practical and efficient" place for the missiles to be.
    The MOST practical and efficient place for the shields' missiles, is right NEXT TO the Russian silo/missiles, not to say, ABOVE the silo/missiles(so, the missiles can't even get out).
     
  5. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Right, because they disagree with the principle of ABMs.
    China is just as worried about North Korea as us.

    You gravely overestimate North Korea's ability to indigenously develop ICBMs. I find it interesting that the countries that allready live under the threat of instant annihilation by the North Koreans are handling this much more calmly.
     
  6. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    The more likely reason is that they don't have the necessary technology. But you're right that China has traditionally relied on "minimal" deterrence.

    Is this a joke? China is the main trading partner and "ally" of the North Korean regime. It is largely China who keeps the regime alive, as sort of a "buffer zone" between itself and the US forces in South Korea and Japan.

    I don't overestimate, you underestimate. Basically, you're saying that the past successes in missile development were just accidental, and I totally disagree with that. They have large, relatively sophisticated (for a country of this size and level of development) programme, well capable of producing an ICBM. It's just a matter of time.

    And of course, there is a cooperation between NK, Iran and other countries. Missiles have become an export article for the NK.

    Who are you talking about? South Korea? Japan?
    ROK has one of the largest standing armies in the world and as well as Japan relies on the US protection. The alliance with the US is a key to the security of both these countries.

    If the US was directly threatened by the NK, it could compromise their security too. That's why Japan, for instance, cooperates with the US on missile defense development.
     
  7. Ramius75

    Ramius75 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,218
    Location:
    Sing City
    ok, i said its practical. But likewise, its also have a more political purpose like roping in the Eastern europe countries and further isolate Russia.
     
  8. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Of course their trying to keep it alive, for the same reason that South Korea is: because a cornered animal is more dangerous.

    Their previous successes were largely by copying blueprints provided by other nations.

    Neither would protect Seoul in the event of a war. With the number of fortified artillery emplacements facing Seoul, that under the best estimates of success for U.S. ROK forces knocking out these batteries, take at most 45 minutes for Seoul to be leveled. The difference provided by a nuclear weapon is almost minimal for the ROK.
     
  9. King Alexander

    King Alexander Universe explorer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Thessaloniki, Hellas
    Keep it quiet, man! :eek: You don't want people to wake up from their sleep now, do you? :lol:
     
  10. woody60707

    woody60707 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,588
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Guys, Have you read the other things Putin has been saying? his talking about the ABM system is as silly as he is the next Gandhi, yes, he thinks he the next Gandhi and the "world's only true democrat".

    The US invited Russia to work with them in the ABM system, Russia said no.

    I was in missile defense when I was in the Marines, and guys, it is far from assured that this system will even work as well as we hope. I sure as hell wouldn't bet my life on it, but its the best we got, so something better then nothing. But the point is that this is no threat to Russia. Anyone who knows anything about missiles knows this. With the CM, ECCM and MIRV Russia will employ with there ICBMs and add in that we are only putting in 10 sites adds up to nil with what Russia can do.

    If the US believed we could make enough ABM sites to fully stop us form getting nuked, we would, but we cant! All this money and time we are spending in this system is all for the hope to stop one or two missiles. And I wouldn't bet my life on that system working. but like I said, it's better then nothing.
     
  11. PrincepsAmerica

    PrincepsAmerica Nothingness made flesh

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    602
    Location:
    America
    Haha the main person arguing the American side in here is a Czech.

    Hold the line Winner.
     
  12. woody60707

    woody60707 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,588
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Or maybe he is arguing the Czech republic's side? That maybe he doesn't want to be bullied by the Russians under the threat of using nukes as to what his own nation can do? Is everyone forgetting that the Czech's can tell the US no (and maybe likely will, well until Russia start saying they were going to point nukes at them, now its up in the air.)?

    NEWS FLASH! I am watching Bush on CNN right now saying that he wants Russian Generals and scientist to come over and look at every part of the system. To see for there own eyes and leave no doubt that this system is in no way a threat to Russia.

    But Lets be honest, Russia wants a threat. And Russia will use the US having closing ties with CE as that threat. Well thats just something Russia will have to deal with, I think the US should start to building closer ties with central Europe. And not let Russia bully us to stop doing us.

    And why wouldn't the EU want a missile shield, US made or EU made (better EU made for the EU, duh)?
     
  13. innonimatu

    innonimatu Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    11,019
    The EU might very well have a use for an ABM system. One under exclusive EU control. But that won't happen soor, and it's not an absolute priority now.

    Anyway, you've touched the real problem: the US presence in Central Europe. It's not just Russia that's not pleased with it, western european countries are also weary of it. Europe cannot afford a new cold war, just because it would suit the US to have Europe by its side on its quest for continued world dominance. We need trade with Russia, and we don't need the costs of a new arms race. Nor do we want to be again reduced to the role of potential battlefield bound to american foreign policy. Nor do we want trojan horses inside the EU aligned solely with US interests.

    The "shield" itself is useless to protect Europe (whatever the US government may say). But it may be just enough to embolden a future US administration to attack, say, a nuclear armed Iran. And Europe would get screwed in such an event, shield or no shield (we need Iran as an alternative to Russia, not as a failed state).
    I'm increasingly convinced that EU countries are better off without other allies that allied to the US.
     
  14. woody60707

    woody60707 Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,588
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Maybe western Europe is weary of US closer ties in CE for the same reason Russia is? And all I was talking about was closer ties, where is this "world dominance" bit coming from? The US is asking and talking to the Central European nation. If Poland, Czech rep. or any CE nation wants to tell us to take a hike, we will.

    Maybe you think The USA needs to get off it's high horse, Well I 100% agree with that. Thats why I want the US to build better ties of friendship around the world. But you know what, Russia and (too a lesser extent) Western Europe are on the same high horse. Western Europe and Russia needs to learn the rest of Europe isn't there just to be used and told what to do by other powers around them.
     
  15. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    You know, a missle interception system in Poland is just as capable of knocking down a Russian or Iranian missile as it is a German or French one. Just some food for thought.
     
  16. REDY

    REDY Duty Caller

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Messages:
    4,521
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Praha
    Our minister of defence sang horrible country song where she are celebrating radar system. Interesting propaganda:D
     
  17. King Alexander

    King Alexander Universe explorer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    3,421
    Location:
    Thessaloniki, Hellas
    Don't take it personally; think about my answers that I reply to EU citizens who have the same concerns/hopes.
    For what? It isn't usefull to have such an expensive system, since, shortly after a system is able to intercept a missile with an x technological level, there will be made missiles who can beat(always there's enough room to improve something and nothing's absolutely 100% perfect).

    Besides, I'd prefer if such amount of money was spent to make the life in EU better for it's citizens.
    That won't happen for the (many) next decades, if it'll happen at all;
    a)Don't forget that the EU is just a unified union, nothing more, nothing less.
    b) No common foreign goals/ policy/ planning.
    c)The EU doesn't even has the determination/guts* to make a common army(and that's NOT something the USA is solely responsible, and it's a fact), and it created a NATO(!) hybrid. The EU cannot guarantee it's borders, period, regardless if some like it or not, believe it or not.
    *Maybe it's profitable for some countries to keep it that way, so they can sell their weapons to other members, and for tensions to continue at other countries' borders, but, who cares?(certainly, not the EU).
    d) I don't even exclude a future war between EU members, if they don't manage to really unite and decide together for their own/general interests.
    Yes, what you say it's true, and it causes concerns about the agressiveness from god-speaking/god-hearing lunatics running countries both to east and west of the EU.

    But...first...;
    I, for one, cannot accuse the eastern EU countries of anything, for choosing their own protector(in the streets, they say another word for such a protecting/money keeping service ;) ), since, the last one was very brutal and they stayed together for too long.

    Secondly, there isn't any other protector for them out there! (they could find protection inside the EU, and be equals among equals, but the EU cannot/DOES NOT WANT TO protect itself, as I've already said).

    Last but not least, the earlier members of the EU still have colonial behaviour and want past glories, as shown by what each *illegal-invading* country in the nonsense "war against terror" hoped, when they decided to join the war, and smash the EU's unity(even with outside pressure).
    So, one cannot say, that "western european countries are also weary of it", because it sounds hypocritical.
    Maybe so, for some countries, but, don't they know that "one piece of stick alone breaks, but two won't".
    Acting for their own personal interest and not also consider the interest of the EU(let them vote for it at the parliament), makes their position worse.
    :lol:
    Thing is, trojan horses were/are already inside the EU(from the very first members, indeed), so, no need to just blame the newcomers...
    I thought people around the wolrd would know better of whether to trust a goverment still saying/pretending that it's actions are powered by the OSB-"terrorists-hunt"(not to mention, it didn't capture him, and it still searches for biological weapons in places of the world it should be from the first place).

    I don't doubt that voters of this goverment would believe anything they were told to; the same mistakes do people all over the wolrd and, imho,m they're also responsible of what their goverment do(I don't blame only goverments, but also people and certain mentalities that lead them to vote for bad goverments).
    That won't happen ever. It's a "race-fear" to justify future actions.
    I don't see anyone debating about India and how it's "friend" sold them nuclear technology, violating any agreement, but it's all about Iran (and fo course, Russia and it's regime; I wonder if all this hype is being made by coincidence --- speaking of Russia, the EU must develop better relationships with it to buy it's energy/trade, and it's a relationship that suits both sides).
    Maybe so.
    In general, the USA is a good ally so many decades now(even for it's own interests only), and we shouldn't turn our back on them(has anyone any mood for another round of Cold War, for nothing?), not to mention they're EU's #1 trading partner.

    P.S.: I don't represent anyone but myself and I express my personal opinion only(if it's hard to understand).
     
  18. amadeus

    amadeus めっちゃしんどい

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    32,508
    Location:
    Osaka (大阪)
    Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? We're already helping defend your airspace from hostile attacks.

    Russia doesn't like it because they aren't over the fact that they've lost the cold war yet, and Western Europe doesn't like it because U.S. bases bring in the cash for their local economies.

    Yes, it certainly isn't a huge amount, but how many real European leaders have you ever seen oppose a U.S. base opening? How many have you seen oppose a base closing?



    Putin is the one pointing the missiles. Russia, by the way, has just recently tested a new ICBM. We haven't upgraded our missiles in 25 years.

    Remind me again who is starting the arms race?

    Who is we? The Czech Republic and Poland don't seem to have any problem with our presence. How many more times are you willing to sell them up the river?

    So the opposition really stems from "Europe's" desire to have business interests in Iran and Russia. And you criticize our morals?

    Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia all tend to disagree.
     
  19. Lone Wolf

    Lone Wolf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    9,865
    Nobody can afford a new cold war, nobody wants it. So, there will be no cold war. What's more, recently it has became easier for a part of Russian population to receive Shengen visas. Easier, not harder.

    And these rockets and defence shields at least help to combat unemployment by creating new jobs. :)
     
  20. Winner

    Winner Diverse in Unity

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2004
    Messages:
    27,947
    Location:
    Brno -> Czech rep. >>European Union
    And maybe innonimatu is wrong - again :D

    Western Europe (Germany included, but it is technically Central Europe too) has no objections to the US presence further in the East. In fact, the main US bases, the backbone of the US presence, are the US bases in Germany. Another bases are located in Italy, Portugal and Great Britain and there are also smaller installations in Belgium and other countries.

    Compared to this, Central Europe and Eastern Europe are not even close to be the main US allies in Europe.

    Innonimatu got it all wrong. Neither Central Europe or Western Europe want or can do business like this, I mean "either you're with the US, or with us". That's not how it works, the most of Europe is allied to the US through the NATO.

    Certain individuals like the one mentioned above would like to break this alliance and kick the US out of Europe. They're minority both in Western and Central Europe.

    In fact, EU is now becoming more and more pro-US again. The governments in Germany and France which opposed the US are now gone (isn't democracy wonderful?) and the new ones have much more positive attitude. EU is also increasingly wary of Russia, after what they did in the last year or two.

    Even the issue of ABM defense is now becoming less controversial. Western Europe never said it is against it. Now, when Russia resorted to open threats and when Iran is openly defying the UN and IAEA, European countries see that this system could actually be useful.
     

Share This Page