US 'plans to scrap missile shield'

[Patroklos]

Thats even worse, that Obama just gave up the farm to pay Russia to do something thats in its own interest anyway. Awesome deal. Not that there is any indication that this is the case.

 

[onedreamer]

I'd like to think that was true Patroklos, but realistically the US got some quid pro quo from Russia for this.

Realistically for the US maybe. Not for Russia.

 

[Dragonlord]

Western European democracies maybe not. But Noth American one (using its vassals in Europe) may.


Long behind us, you say? There are plenty of people still alive who was born in the times which you claim to be long behind. As for reason "to conquer Russia" - there are plenty (not applicable now but could become valid in future), but actually it is not Europe whom Russia afraid but the Empire of Good.

That's why I specifically said Western European democracies would also never allow an attack on Russia from their soil.
I don't know who, exactly, you mean by 'North American vassals', but you should finally realize that Germany and France, to name just two, are anything but 'American vassals'. We didn't follow GWB in attacking Iraq, and you'd better believe we wouldn't allow an attack on Russia!
Not that I believe the US would do such a thing - not even under GWB, let alone Obama.

And, yes, I do believe the times when an attack could conceivably have come from Western Europe are long gone. I grew up during the Cold War and even then, there was never the slightest question of attacking the USSR, only the fear of being attacked by them. Yes, it's only 70 years since Germany attacked Russia, but the way of thinking here has changed so massively since then that no such attack could conceivably happen today.

 

[Patroklos]

Germany and France would most certainly allow and participate in an attack on Russia, fortunetly the only thing that would prompt that would be a ridiculously unlikely display of stupidity on the part of the Russians which is impossible (and thats saying a lot when speaking or Russia, see their current stupidity over missile defense). The same is true for America/Canada as well.

Thats the point, anything that would prompt war from either side is so outside the realm of concievable reality that the idea that the missile shield has anything to do with Russia at all is patently absurd.

 

[Elrohir]

They still do, and righly so. Europeans and Americans are no longer scared of Russia's conventional military. Their only real defense is the ability to nuke everyone they want. Take that ability away and the danger of invasion increases. If it wasn't for MAD Russia would already have suffered at least one large war in the last 60 years.

The worst thing that could happen would be a winnable nuclear war. Thus missile defense system are a threat to a country with nuclear weapons.

Of course the planned defense system wouldn't have the capabilities to really threaten Russia, but it could be easily extended over time until it does. Aditionally it threatens nuclear disarming, because without any missile defense, you need fewer nuclear weapons for defense.

The problem is, this missile defense system actually kinda sucks - it seems to work (or can be made to work) fine, but it's so expensive that it's only practicable on a small scale. So while it's probable that we could build systems to intercept any missiles from Iran or North Korea, we'd be out of our league defending against a Russian attack, especially a Russian first strike. We simply wouldn't have enough interceptors to head off a large Russian nuclear attack.

Which is what makes Russian opposition to the missile defense system so lame. They could still blow us up just fine - maybe they'd lose a few dozen missiles with a few hundred warheads, out of hundreds of missiles with literally thousands of warheads. Don't worry, no one is so desperately insane that they'd come up with a way of preventing the nuclear apocalypse.

 

[Riffraff]

The problem is, this missile defense system actually kinda sucks - it seems to work (or can be made to work) fine, but it's so expensive that it's only practicable on a small scale. So while it's probable that we could build systems to intercept any missiles from Iran or North Korea, we'd be out of our league defending against a Russian attack, especially a Russian first strike. We simply wouldn't have enough interceptors to head off a large Russian nuclear attack.

Which is what makes Russian opposition to the missile defense system so lame. They could still blow us up just fine - maybe they'd lose a few dozen missiles with a few hundred warheads, out of hundreds of missiles with literally thousands of warheads. Don't worry, no one is so desperately insane that they'd come up with a way of preventing the nuclear apocalypse.

They don't want to get the ball rolling and Obama is wise not to provocate needlessly. He may actually want the Russian support on 'real' issues.

 

[onedreamer]

Which is what makes Russian opposition to the missile defense system so lame.

The Russian opposition is all but lame, get it in your brainwashed heads once and for all, and start asking questions to yourselves.
Why would the USA, out of the blue, build a missile defense system in POLAND claiming that it is for defense against IRAN (maybe some of you have forgotten how it all started, but I do remember this kind of petty excuses) ? A subtle implication that RUSSIA is a threat for EUROPE but the USA are still there, the heroes that will save Europe from the Russian threat once more (they never did, but who cares).

Wether this defense system is useless or it is useful, the political implications of building it in Poland are very clear to anyone that hasn't been brainwashed by anticommunist propaganda for half a century, Bush administration has done everything it could to not let Russia and the UE be on good terms. Such as supporting Kosovo's indipendence but not Abkhazia's one, building a missile defense system in Poland, pressing for Ukraine to join NATO, asking Sarkozy not to mediate with Moscow in the goergian crisis. Etc etc.

I don't see how one could call lame the russian indignation for this program, or how one could hope that Russia would give away something in change for the program to stop. I think that simply, apparently, Obama has got a bit more of a responsible and cautious approach to foreign politics than G.W. Bush did.

 

[Dachs]

The Russian opposition is all but lame, get it in your brainwashed heads once and for all, and start asking questions to yourselves.
Why would the USA, out of the blue, build a missile defense system in POLAND claiming that it is for defense against IRAN (maybe some of you have forgotten how it all started, but I do remember this kind of petty excuses) ?

Because that's one of the best places to intercept ICBMs launched at the United States from Iran, and a really crappy place to intercept ICBMs launched at the United States from Russia?

 

[Theige]

Good news! Anyone care to speculate on what Russia is going to do in return?

Invade the Ukraine.

 

[onedreamer]

@Dachs
even assuming that what you claim is right, that's not what people in Europe (including Russians) think, while iranians won't give a damn even assuming they'd know it, hence it is irrilevant.

 

[Camikaze]

It was kinda stupid to have a missile shield in the first place, so good riddance to any ideas of it in Poland. Having an expensive defensive line against an unlikely threat that would probably be quelled in some other way before any damage would be done (to America proper) isn't very justifiable when there are so many other things that the money could be better spent on.

 

[Dachs]

@Dachs
even assuming that what you claim is right, that's not what people in Europe (including Russians) think, while iranians won't give a damn even assuming they'd know it, hence it is irrilevant.

It's neither my nor the United States government's responsibility to teach Europeans ballistics.

 

[uppi]

*sigh* I assume you're Russian? - your profile doesn't say.

No.

IMHO, there is absolutely zero chance that Western European democracies will ever attack Russia in the foreseeable future, nor allow such an attack to be launched from their territory by the US (assuming they would want to). So much for a conventional attack.

This is typical Russian paranoia at work - understandable after being attacked in WWII, maybe, but still unjustified in this day and age. No Western politician today could ever get public support for attacking Russia in a conventional war, much less nuclear, and w/o public support war could not be declared and the army probably wouldn't obey such an order. Also, why would we want to start a war in the first place? Sacrifice thousands or millions of lives to conquer Russia - to what end?

These times are long behind us .... thank God.

I don't think, that (sane) Western politicians would want to and get support for an all out attack on Russia either. But alliances and stupid mistakes could draw them in a war they woudn't want. Just imagine, what would have happened, if Georgia had been a member of NATO a year ago. The only options would have been playing chicken with the Russians and risking a war, or letting NATO break apart. And then there are the unstable politics in eastern Europe. There is a possibility that at one time someone does something stupid to threaten Russia (or just threaten Russian interests, which is interpreted as threatening Russia.

And then, ven if there is no possibility of an attack on Russia right now, who says that this won't change in the next 30 years. After WWI noone thought that there would be an even bigger war 20 years later. Current politician seem to only think in election periods, but that doesn't mean they should.

 

[RedRalph]

I would imagine the Poles will be spitting feathers. Maybe thats why Microsoft shopped out the black guy, association with Obama isn't going to help business down Poland way

 

[jessiecat]

I'd like to think that was true Patroklos, but realistically the US got some quid pro quo from Russia for this. something to do with DPRK or Iran in all likelyhood.

Most likely. But then the Russians are not obliged to do anything if the US scrapped it's out-dated irrelevant plans to save a wad of cash. But I quiet word in Tehran's ear wouldn't cost them a thing and might help in some way. Like Washington might say something in Tel Aviv as well. It's a win/win situation for everybody. So maybe.

 

[onedreamer]

It's neither my nor the United States government's responsibility to teach Europeans ballistics.

the US gov. resposability during G.W. Bush was to do propaganda against Russia whenever it could, your resposability as a thinking human being is to discern propaganda from ballistics.

 

[uppi]

The problem is, this missile defense system actually kinda sucks - it seems to work (or can be made to work) fine, but it's so expensive that it's only practicable on a small scale. So while it's probable that we could build systems to intercept any missiles from Iran or North Korea, we'd be out of our league defending against a Russian attack, especially a Russian first strike. We simply wouldn't have enough interceptors to head off a large Russian nuclear attack.

Which is what makes Russian opposition to the missile defense system so lame. They could still blow us up just fine - maybe they'd lose a few dozen missiles with a few hundred warheads, out of hundreds of missiles with literally thousands of warheads. Don't worry, no one is so desperately insane that they'd come up with a way of preventing the nuclear apocalypse.

It kinda sucks and is expensive right now. Once in place, such a system tends to get upgrades. And even if it does take out only a few, it still increases the number of missiles that have to be launched. And then the ones taken out might be the important ones, the real big ones. Someone about to launch a nuclear strike, might be much more inclined to do so, if he knows that the ones heading for him can be taken out.

 

[Patroklos]

The Russian opposition is all but lame, get it in your brainwashed heads once and for all, and start asking questions to yourselves.
Why would the USA, out of the blue, build a missile defense system in POLAND claiming that it is for defense against IRAN (maybe some of you have forgotten how it all started, but I do remember this kind of petty excuses) ? A subtle implication that RUSSIA is a threat for EUROPE but the USA are still there, the heroes that will save Europe from the Russian threat once more (they never did, but who cares).

Wow, when I said you were ignorant of geometry I didn't realize just how ignorant.

1.) The development was not out of the blue. This itteration of the system matches exactly the increased capability of both the NK and Iran. In fact, fully 1/3 of the sytem, the sea based portion, is absolutely useless against Russia even under all circumstances.

2.) The sites built are picked specifically to be be useful in defending Europe and North America from them, NOT RUSSIA. I repeat, NONE OF THE SITES ARE LOCATED TO DEFEND AMERICA FROM RUSSIA!!!.

3.) The missiles in question are part of a three part system, this one being the intermediate phase. The boost phase is covered by ship based systems that can be kept close to NK and Iran, and the terminal phase is covered by the Patriot blk III currently. If you want to shoot down a missile from Iran to Europe in the itermediate phase, you actually locate it in Europe so the interceptor can meet the missile in its intermediate phase. This is simple math, and unless you believe the Russias are complete idiots then there is no getting around the fact that they know this. The simple fact is that these missiles would be useless against Russia attacks on Europe because in all likelihood Russia is not going to wast ICBMs on Europe but rather use cheaper theatre missiles for the most part.

Wether this defense system is useless or it is useful, the political implications of building it in Poland are very clear to anyone that hasn't been brainwashed by anticommunist propaganda for half a century, Bush administration has done everything it could to not let Russia and the UE be on good terms. Such as supporting Kosovo's indipendence but not Abkhazia's one, building a missile defense system in Poland, pressing for Ukraine to join NATO, asking Sarkozy not to mediate with Moscow in the goergian crisis. Etc etc.

And thus we get the actual reason why Russians are mad about this, because they can no longer dictate the ever move of a dozen countries and hundreds of millions of people on their slightest whim any more.

I don't see how one could call lame the russian indignation for this program, or how one could hope that Russia would give away something in change for the program to stop. I think that simply, apparently, Obama has got a bit more of a responsible and cautious approach to foreign politics than G.W. Bush did.

I am curious, do you thingk OMG GWB!!! in any way supports your position?

 

[Patroklos]

even assuming that what you claim is right, that's not what people in Europe (including Russians) think, while iranians won't give a damn even assuming they'd know it, hence it is irrilevant.

No, it is what the Russians think. The Europeans who oppose it do so because they think it won't work against Iran, not because it has anything to do with Russia.

And for the record it is not in Poland to defend America against Iranian missiles, it is in Poland to defend our treaty allies who are vital to our own interests against Iranian missiles.

Onedreamer, please explain how this system in any way insulates America from a Russian attack. This should be fun. BTW, just so you know we invited Russia to participate in this project but they refused, showing that it has nothing to do with it being a threat against Russia.

 

[onedreamer]

After WWI noone thought that there would be an even bigger war 20 years later.

Not really, Field Marshal Ferdinand Foch said, after the Treaty of Versailles in 1919: "This is not Peace. It is an Armistice for twenty years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aftermath_of_World_War_I


Patroklos, the only fun thing is that you didn't read my previous answer about this explaining how it is irrilevant wether the shield system is useful or not and against whom.