Russia Threatens Pre-emptive, Destructive Force On US Missile Defense 675
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."
Pot, kettle (Score:0, Informative)
Let's see how the US likes pre-emptive strikes against its stuff.
Signed,
The world
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)
They call it a threat because it neutralizes the "Mutually Assured Destruction" balance that has thus far prevented thermonuclear war from being a viable option. If they can't shoot missiles at us, but we can shoot missiles at them, then there's nothing preventing us from just nuking them out of existence next time we have a disagreement.
The cold war is still pretty fresh in some people's minds...
Re:Pot, kettle (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see how the US likes pre-emptive strikes against its stuff.
Signed,
The world
A "pre-emptive strike" against a defensive system is not justified. The Russians should also consider that any "pre-emtpive strike" will result in retaliation and weigh that before deciding. If the Russians are willing to go to war against the US over and defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to, then they really just want war anyway.
Signed,
An American Soldier
Re:Weird (Score:3, Informative)
Putin wants to be reelected. He's a bully, so he needs to threaten. Once he's safely in office eating caviar and fucking icelandic whores, he'll be fine.
Re:Cooperation? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Cooperation was actually proposed by the Russians. IIRC, the Russians wanted to have their finger on a "kill" switch for the system. There is also concern about sharing sensitive military technology with them.
Re:WWIII (Score:4, Informative)
WWV? Then at least it should be on time [nist.gov].
Re:Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (Score:5, Informative)
This also doesn't take into account that there is no love lost between China and Russia, and they've been somewhat at odds for decades.
Yeah, over 50 of them. The Russians have been paranoid about another Chinese invasion since Ivan the Terrible defeated the last remnants of the Golden Horde. More recently, the two countries have had several shooting wars since the 1960s, with some thousands dead on each side, each time, that have been hushed up as neither side gained anything but open slots for promotions.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)
Russian missiles are set to travel over the North Pole, not over Europe. This system would only defend against missiles targeting Europe,
Europe is where the U.S. keeps most of its first strike nukes. Protecting those with a missile defense system leaves Russia at a huge disadvantage in any nuke war--and seriously upsets the Mutually-Assured-Destruction balance of power.
Re:Frak (Score:5, Informative)
But seriously, the Cuban Missile Crisis was Russia's response to the U.S.'s placement of 100 nuclear IRBMs in Italy and Turkey a year earlier that had the ability to take out Moscow (See "Cuban Missile Crisis" Paragraph 1 [wikipedia.org]). The result of the crisis was that the Soviets removed their missile base equipment from Cuba and the U.S. dismantled its missiles in Italy and Turkey. And the leaders of the two countries got a Bat Phone so they could figure this out quicker next time (See "Cuban Missile Crisis" Paragraph 5 [wikipedia.org]).
So from Russia's perspective, they're looking at this and asking, "Really? Didn't we already go through this 50 years ago?" They don't know what kinds of missiles are going to actually be at a base in Poland. If history were to repeat itself, it seems logical that their response would be to set up a missile base near the U.S... you know, to protect against a missile attack from Iran in case one of the missiles it fires at the U.S. overshoots its target.
For a while we avoided this problem by telling the public we had this magical ability to shoot down nuclear missiles with lasers from space, but then Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd had to show everyone it doesn't really work (See Spies Like Us, Plot, paragraph 4 [wikipedia.org]), so now we have to build more missile bases to make everyone feel safe again. Who knew Chevy Chase would actually end up destroying the world? And to think, his high school guidance counselor said he'd never amount to anything.