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."
Frak (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Frak (Score:5, Funny)
On the bright side, at least I'll finally be able to make use of that pocket survival kit I got for Christmas and show my Doomsday scenario skills acquired from countless hours in post-apocalyptic video games.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Frak (Score:5, Funny)
I just have one thing to say:
We will all go together when we go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frAEmhqdLFs [youtube.com]
Re:Frak (Score:5, Funny)
Meh. What do we care, we are in the US!!!!!!
Re:Frak (Score:5, Funny)
No kidding.
"Pre-emtive strike? That's unheard of!!! Who does that?!?"
Re: (Score:3)
Where did this come from, Russia is prepared to actually start world war 3 over a missile defence system? I thought the cold war was over? Its a bit more serious than sabre rattling!
Re:Frak (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think the USA would do if Russia began installing a "Missile Defense System" in Cuba and Venezuela?
Re:Frak (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. Because of MAD, missle "defense" is actually an offensive strategy. Effective missile defense makes a first strike possible, where mutually assured destruction does not.
If you don't intend to commit the first strike, there's no reason to build missile defenses. No one is going to attack us, because we can destroy them easily if they did. The only possible application of missile defense is to enable us to make the first strike, and defend against retaliation.
Re:Frak (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Frak (Score:5, Insightful)
My understanding is that Russia could trivially overwhelm anything but a completely sky-saturating missile defence.
That would be *before* we surprise them with a first strike.
After a first strike, maybe not. That's their concern.
Re:Frak (Score:5, Insightful)
I would like to introduce you to my little friends the Delta 3 and Delta 4 ballistic missile submarines. Each one has 16 SLBMs. Your first strike would never get all of those, and they would launch much closer to the USA than any missile defense system we currently have in use.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Once the camel's nose is in the tent, soon the rest of the camel will follow.
If I were to play this game on the US side I would do it step by step. First, reduce the number of warheads and missiles by agreements. Then deploy interceptors near Russia's borders. Then work on whatever assets remain. Submarines can be easily countered by following them and destroying them before you press the big red button. All you need to do is to find them, and there are ways to do so (it's just a technical problem.) If a
Re:Frak (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia seems to be more concerned that the US would be putting a strategic asset in part of the "near abroad". That implies a certain level of military backing for Poland. Current opinion in some of the more nationalist factions in Russia is that allowing basing of that type (rather than just some ground troops to do training, etc) would limit Russia's ability to project influence in Eastern Europe.
I'm a bit surprised that Russia did this after Obama indicated he would have more manuevering room to negotiate on it after the election. This puts pressure on him in a way that's not likely to lead to him backing down since he's in a campaign. Maybe they see him as vulnerable in some way.
Re:Frak (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a bit surprised that Russia did this after Obama indicated he would have more manuevering room to negotiate on it after the election. This puts pressure on him in a way that's not likely to lead to him backing down since he's in a campaign. Maybe they see him as vulnerable in some way.
Probably because Obama might not be getting re-elected, and he's much more likely to fold to their demands right now than a Republican president a year down the road.
Re: (Score:3)
Underground silos are built to withstand pretty much everything but a direct ground burst right on the silo cap. In other words, missiles are already protected from first strike. The reason why we can have MAD is exactly because missiles systems are built to survive in order to retaliate.
Re: (Score:3)
The US cannot surprise a nation that has nuclear-tipped ICBMs scattered across its massive surface area, along with their nuclear submarines around our coast, with a first strike. They will always have the ability to respond in kind, even if it is just to erase us from the planet, as we would be theoretically doing to them.
The US missile defense is to protect against rogue generals, and rogue nations. There is no hope, nor expectation that it will protect against an onslaught from Russia.
Re:Frak (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, no.
This is a chess game played by people with huge egos. The US missile defense system is employed to keep the economy chugging along. We have sufficient firepower to destroy the planet into a wasteland that would last, for practical purposes, forever.
What you're seeing is fear. Big testosterone-driven egos. Drama from political drama queens whose military economies are fed by conflict between smaller countries.
Missile defense is an oxymoron. We have only a few experimental weapons that are designed to stop ICBMs and multiple warhead devices with unbelievably large price tags. Why? Only a fool would press the big red button. This is about brinksmanship, a boys game. There will be no onslaught from Russia. Yet much smaller allies don't believe that. They're been propagandized from birth about the evils and historical warrior nature of their natural enemies, the guys next door, the apostates, or the heretics-once-our-friends.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Frak (Score:5, Interesting)
Russia is our friend. They are not so sure that we are their friend. After the collapse of the Soviet Union we moved in and established "relations" with any number of gangsters and rogue politicians in Russia. And we contributed financially to a number of useful people. We bought strategic resources and we bought politicians.
When one of their rogue oligarchs was in the process of trying to sell the Russian oil industry to some outfit in Dallas, the old hardliners decided we were definitely not their friend. - > the return of Putin and friends.
We also promised that we were not going to make Russia's neighboring countries part of NATO. Then we made all of those neighboring countries part of NATO.
Re:Frak (Score:5, Interesting)
Americans don't understand that Russia is intimidated by the United States.
Russians don't understand that the feeling isn't mutual.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to assume you're a troll.
Wars have little to do with freedom/lack-of or forms of government. They have much more to do with economic and military incentives.
Re:Frak (Score:5, Insightful)
This is BS of the first order simply because of the number of interceptors that we're talking about. The US can shoot down maybe 90% of incoming warheads on a good day - note INCOMING - not out-going, i.e. launched from near-by neighbor Moscow. Further - there are a limited number of interceptors - where the Russians have hundreds of warhead - we'll likely have less than a couple dozen interceptors at any of these sites. The ability to overwhelm such a system is obvious. The Russians have more than enough throw weight to do so - such a system is really ONLY a deterrent to states that have a hand-full of missiles, i.e. North Korea and Iran.
The only way this is really a threat to Russia is if they are a paper tiger in the nuclear ball club.
Re:Frak (Score:4, Insightful)
It's much easier to shoot down an outgoing missiles before they accelerate to full speed.
Re:Frak (Score:4, Insightful)
This IS a threat to Russia, but a geopolitical one, not a military one. US BMD sites bring along about a battalion of US Amry troops stationed with it to defend it. Therefore by putting a BMD site in Poland, we will be stationing troops in Poland. By stationing troops in Poland, we are unofficially implying to Poland that we are giving them defense guarantees against aggressors.
Russia is in a resurgance period; they have expanded their sphere of influence to dominate almost the entire old Soviet Union. If the US places BMD sites in places like Poland or the Czech Republic, then those countries will think they can act counter to Russian interests, limiting Russia's sphere of influence. The war in 2008 in Georgia is a good example of this; Georgia was a NATO ally, and yet the US did nothing to support them when invaded by the Russians (due to our Middle East wars), not only did that show Georgia who was the biggest kid on the block, it showed every other country in the Caucasus who was too.
Re:Frak (Score:5, Interesting)
Georgia was a NATO ally, and yet the US did nothing to support them when invaded by the Russians (due to our Middle East wars)
U.S. not standing behind Georgia was a perfectly sensible decision. NATO is supposed to be a defensive alliance - it's "a strike against one is a strike against all". But in the 2008 war, it was Georgia that attacked first. If NATO intervened on their behalf, it would set a bad precedent - any NATO member would then be that much more willing to initiate force, knowing that, should they run into problems, their allies will shoulder the burden for them.
Re: (Score:3)
We need a middle defense base in Poland why?
If any rogue state launches a missle that gets anywhere near Poland, they will have flown over Russia and China.. And they AIN'T gonna wait for a UN resolution before going after the rogue state.
The only country this threatens is Russia.
You think that if Country X suddenly lobs a missile at NOT_FRIEND_OF_RUSSIA_OR_CHINA that Russia or China would go to war over there or even bother to shoot it down? Really?
They'd likely just sit back and do exactly nothing. Look at the history of their actions regarding NK and Iran. Further, if you really think a handful of interceptors of questionable reliability is a threat to Russia then clearly you don't really know what is being discussed. The only way this system could threaten Russia in any meaningf
Re: (Score:3)
If you don't intend to commit the first strike, there's no reason to build missile defenses. No one is going to attack us, because we can destroy them easily if they did. The only possible application of missile defense is to enable us to make the first strike, and defend against retaliation.
Exactly - that's why there have never been any suicide bombers, and why no one has ever shot at armed police or troops.
People desperate to take or keep power sometimes do desperate things.
MAD relies on everyone potentially in charge of nuclear missiles to be rational.
These 2 things are slightly incompatible. MAD has held up surprisingly well, but as the landscape changes from US-vs-USSR to multiple players, it gets messier.
Re:Frak (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly - that's why there have never been any suicide bombers, and why no one has ever shot at armed police or troops.
People desperate to take or keep power sometimes do desperate things.
Those two statements are unrelated. 'People desperate to take or keep power' don't blow themselves up or shoot at police. Nor do they launch suicidal first strikes... unless you can give examples that show otherwise.
Desperate, powerless and misguided people do those things.
Re:Frak (Score:4, Interesting)
'People desperate to take or keep power' don't blow themselves up or shoot at police. Nor do they launch suicidal first strikes... unless you can give examples that show otherwise.
Most every suicide attack in the middle east is about getting and keeping power. When the Taliban straps explosives onto a mentally disabled, drugged young woman, covers her back up with her burka, and sends her into a vegetable market or out in front of a police station to slaughter people, it's entirely about power. About influencing it, projecting it, and destabilizing opposing power. When a young man driving a car full of explosives blows himself up in front of a foreign embassy or hotel, it's about getting and keeping power: he wants his particular slice of culture to be dominant over another slice of culture. To the extent that his slice of culture is informed by medieval-minded religious wackadoo-ness, blowing himself up isn't seen as self-destruction, but as participation in the culture, and as a shortcut to glory and reward. He wants power for him and his cultural niche, and blowing himself up is part of that plan. It's completely irrational, but it's hardly rare, at this point.
Re: (Score:3)
There is another aspect. The current implementation of the missile defense may be insignificant, but it's a way of pulling in the countries around Russia. Later on you can increase the weaponry. Doing things one small step at the time is how you cook the frog in the pan of water.
Re:Frak (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Because of MAD, missle "defense" is actually an offensive strategy. Effective missile defense makes a first strike possible, where mutually assured destruction does not.
If you don't intend to commit the first strike, there's no reason to build missile defenses. No one is going to attack us, because we can destroy them easily if they did. The only possible application of missile defense is to enable us to make the first strike, and defend against retaliation.
Why is this marked Insightful, let alone +5? The system being built is absolutely incapable of any credible defense against a Russian attack. There is a very very far cry from a system able to (probably) shoot down a handful of relatively crude missiles (of the type Iran/NK would likely be able to produce on their own in the short to midterm) and the top of the line Russian missiles, never mind the sheer volume of them. Additionally, this system would do exactly nothing against a strike against North America.
The way Russia is freaking out publicly you'd think the system was capable of 100% full interception of any Russian launch anywhere in the world. Even if this system were capable of fully neutralizing their land based assets that says nothing for their non-trivial sea launched weapons.
In short, based on the information available I can't see how this system presents a credible threat to them nor how it could reasonably be used to allow a first strike. That doesn't even address the question of why the hell NATO would want to do a first strike against Russia in the first place.
None of what I said should be taken to mean I think building this system is a good use of resources. If Iran or NK (or whoever) is going to be able to have the ability to launch such an attack I imagine they would have it far sooner than the 8 years it is going to take to build this silly thing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
":I guess you assume that Americans are salvage barbarians since it would take one to even contemplate a first strike that would take out all of Russian missiles, bombers and submarines,"
we are a warmongering country. WE have been at war more than They have. Hell we go to war at the drop of a hat. Why not assume that our past will predict our future.
The United States wouldn't care (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The United States wouldn't care (Score:5, Insightful)
This. Russia and its antecedents have spent the better part of six hundred years trying to control Poland and her neighbours. Did anyone really think that the collapse of the Soviet Empire would change that?
Re: (Score:3)
Russia and its antecedents have spent the better part of six hundred years trying to control Poland and her neighbours.
Your dates are a bit off. Just to remind, the Russian Time of Troubles [wikipedia.org] was just over 400 years ago - and, to remind, part of the reasons why it's called that was because of two puppet kings backed by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on the throne.
The assertion of Russian dominance over Poland didn't really start in its earnest until Peter the Great, and specifically the aftermath of the Great Northern War that established Russia as the new major player in the Baltic region, replacing Sweden which played t
Re:The United States wouldn't care (Score:5, Interesting)
I also tend to think that this is really Putin trying to claim to the Russian people that Russia still matters as a military force, i.e., he still wields a big dick. Being an economic force isn't something he knows how to produce and he knows it. All he has to do is show Russia can influence America's strategic behavior to claim he can not only hold his dick, he can wave it as well.
Re:The United States wouldn't care (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that the Russians tried to arrange a deal whereupon Russian observers would be in place on US missile defense bases, to ensure they cannot be used against them. The US refused.
There's plenty of evidence that the Russians are genuine in their belief that this is a threat to them, and this has been a consistent position of theirs since the Cold War.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't understand why so many commentators feel that the US is entitled to do whatever it wants in terms of military positioning around the globe but other countries can't protest or take similar actions.
Remember this diplomacy is a bit more complex than good guys vs bad guys.
United State Foreign Policy 101 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:The United States wouldn't care (Score:4, Interesting)
What the hell are you talking about??
Russia kicked Georgia's ass not because of some mythical "move towards the Western ideology". Georgia launched an unprovoked large-scale military offensive on South Ossetia. Scores of people died, including civilians and Russian peacekeepers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war [wikipedia.org] . So Russia got involved militarily, kicked the sorry georgian ass out of South Ossetia, and kept kicking it all the way back to georgia's capital Tbilisi. Then it withdrew its forces. Georgia was the aggressor.
Same with Ukraine, it's just local clans fighting for influence, one than the other gaining more power and pushing their people as presidents. It has nothing to do with "evil Moscow hand".
Stop smoking whatever you are smoking and get your facts straight.
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.
Re: (Score:3)
The REAL issue is that Russia asked to be part of the defensive system, in order to protect their citizens living on the western part of their territory, but the U.S. said "No. Go away."
Why would the U.S. include all the other European countries but not Russia? Clearly there's an agenda here to restart a new cold war, and thereby jumpstart the defensive corporations. War == money for them.
The president and prime minister are both pretty pissed that they were excluded from participating. They feel that R
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Frak (Score:5, Insightful)
Where did this come from, Russia is prepared to actually start world war 3 over a missile defence system? I thought the cold war was over? Its a bit more serious than sabre rattling!
Rather, US is prepared to actually start world war 3 over a missile defence system.
See what I did there?
Re: (Score:3)
but what do u expect to happen when u provoke someone?!
I agree it is a dangerous game. That said, if you calculate the risk of Iran lobbing a missile as greater than the risk of Russia starting WW3, then the provocation might be worth the consequences. The real test would be if the US give up the missile shield when China finally gives up on North Korea and revolution finally occurs in Iran.
Re: (Score:3)
It wouldn't solve a thing, it would make matters worse. The regime change in Iraq showed that. The Iraqi people are in worse shape now after 9 years of an American presence than they were pre-invasion. About the only people an Iranian invasion would be good for are Blackwater et.al. & the oil companie
Re: (Score:3)
It's called seeing it from their perspective. Just because you characterize it as "anti-US propaganda" doesn't mean it isn't valid.
Fair enough. But read the rest of X.25's comments before you accuse me of being the one who is one-sided.
were you just provoked, or attacked?
That's an easy one - provoked. I guess you could also say I was attacked because it is clear that in this context it is not a physical attack.
Re: (Score:3)
The old lose-lose scenario remains, Russia has lots of nukes. Which is why Russia considers a missile defence system in europe intolerable as it would be conceivable to use a european based system to nail ICBMs during boost phase and might render them incapable of retailation against a possible US strike.
So I wouldn't be so sure they won't actually strike. The US has a bad tendency to attack those it percieves as largely defenseless, and should something like the Georgian war be repeated the Russian options
Re: (Score:3)
...while they might outnumber our tanks, we've got far superior aircraft and tactical weapons, not to mention a superior training program for our soldiers, sailors, Marines, and Airmen.
Yeah, that'll help against the nuclear missiles.
(Not)
Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (Score:2, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
WWIII (Score:3)
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.
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, Interesting)
I don't think it's stumbling like a blind fool - these military ventures are very much in line with the plans of some evil bastards [slashdot.org] who think that because the US (with help of some European allies) is capable of completely taking over the world militarily, it has a moral responsibility to do so. Never mind the millions of people that might get killed in the process.
Re:Worried the U.S. is about to stumble into WWIII (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Mayan Promise (Score:5, Funny)
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
Thank God for Smart Diplomacy! (Score:4, Funny)
Not sure what we'd do without it....
Weird (Score:5, Interesting)
This is weird on so many levels.
So - what's really going on here?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
Ego. That's what's going on here. And the powers that be in Russia are willing to risk a complete throwback to the cold war era.
I'm not convinced it is necessarily Russia's fault. Every American president since the wall came down (Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Lesser, Obama) has at best ignored Russia and at worse treated them as children to be chided or acted as if the cold war was on going.
None of the presidents have acted like anything changed since the wall came down; none of them have treated them as equal partners on the world stage; none of them have acted like they are potential friends; none have given them have given any respect -- and by "respect" I mean the common decency of acknowledging that they have a right to an opinion. Hell, that they might be useful allies. The Russian experience and insight with Islamic countries could have proved useful over the last 10 years.
Treat anyone as poorly as we've treated Russia and eventually they'll get belligerent as well.
Is it too late to change the relationship? Who knows. Lost opportunities are always easier to spot than emerging ones.
Re: (Score:3)
Ego. That's what's going on here. And the powers that be in Russia are willing to risk a complete throwback to the cold war era.
I'm not convinced it is necessarily Russia's fault. Every American president since the wall came down (Bush the Elder, Clinton, Bush the Lesser, Obama) has at best ignored Russia and at worse treated them as children to be chided or acted as if the cold war was on going.
None of the presidents have acted like anything changed since the wall came down; none of them have treated them as equal partners on the world stage; none of them have acted like they are potential friends; none have given them have given any respect -- and by "respect" I mean the common decency of acknowledging that they have a right to an opinion. Hell, that they might be useful allies. The Russian experience and insight with Islamic countries could have proved useful over the last 10 years.
Treat anyone as poorly as we've treated Russia and eventually they'll get belligerent as well.
Is it too late to change the relationship? Who knows. Lost opportunities are always easier to spot than emerging ones.
To be fair, outside of their nuclear arsenal Russia really isn't all that significant - and that's probably the real thing that drives them. Without the Soviet Union, they're hovering around the 10th largest economy in the world (about even with Canada, depending on what source you look at), and the 8th largest by population. They are trying to maintain their inflated political influence through the only means they have - their large military and especially massive nuclear arsenal. Outside of their weapons,
Re: (Score:3)
None of the presidents have acted like anything changed since the wall came down;
Right, because very little has. And Putin takes frequent opportunities to try to keep it that way.
none of them have treated them as equal partners on the world stage;
True. Because they're not. Not equal in their contributions to peacekeeping efforts. Not equal in efforts to rein in places like North Korea. Not equal in stabilizing trade. Not equal in their handling of organized crime. Etc.
none of them have acted like they are potential friends;
Other than constant overtures that are rebuffed at every turn by the same handful of people that are still running Russia.
none have given them have given any respect -- and by "respect" I mean the common decency of acknowledging that they have a right to an opinion.
What does that even mean? Do you mean that we don't let them t
Re: (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:Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
First, since the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s, isn't the cold war over. Why is Russia still rattling sabres?
For various reasons that can be and have been debated at length, Russia really feels threatened by the West and doesn't like NATO accepting new members in its former buffer zone of Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet Republics.
As far as I can tell, they no longer have the ambition of conquering Europe.
Tank rush to the English Channel? Not so much, no. But whether or not they want to establish/maintain hegemony over Eastern Europe is another matter.
Second, even back in cold-war days, the objections to missile defense were bizarre. MAD was exactly that: "mad". Governments agreeing to *not* defend their respective citizens: truly mad.
A perfect defense means you have no reason not to launch an offense. A first strike becomes all reward with no risk.
The policy is nothing if not rational.
Finally, what the devil is the US doing, putting defenses into Europe? If missile defenses are necessary, Europe is perfectly capable of putting them in all by itself
I as an American agree wholeheartedly, but Europe has a longstanding postwar habit of not spending more than €0.17 on defense and relying on the US to cover the rest (witness the Yugoslav Wars).
In any event, it's technically "NATO" we're talking about here. The balance of influence and responsibility within NATO can be treated as a separate matter.
Re: (Score:3)
Because they don't need to, with or without American military bases in Europe, and certainly not after the fall of the U.S.S.R. Grotesque military budgets have nothing to do with actual defense needs and everything to do with shoveling cash into the military-industrial complex.
Re: (Score:3)
The sabre-rattling could be for a number of reasons.
The first might be internal consumption -- Putin's popularity has been flagging as of late, and there's nothing like a little rally-round-the-flag to shore up support.
Another might be to try to throw the US off balance while we try to negotiate with the Chinese, where we're already in hot water over the Chen incident in addition to trying to get support on Iran, Syria and various other Sino-American issues. The US and China smiling and agreeing to squeeze
Re: (Score:3)
You know that the U.S. is the by far the largest single member of NATO. No?
Re: (Score:3)
We've made some attempts to include Russia (mostly as monitors/operators at missile defense sites in Eastern Europe). Those attempts have generally been rebuffed. Plus, Russia is getting various benefits from their saber-rattling, and their behavior generally indicates that they'd be pleased as punch to see Iranian missiles falling on Israel and North Korean missiles falling on South Korea. They've consistently vetoed just about every UN effort to deal with peace and stability issues since Putin came in pow
So the Russians think this thing actually works? (Score:5, Funny)
They must know more than everyone else.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:So the Russians think this thing actually works (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
1962 in reverse (Score:4, Interesting)
Wait a sec here... (Score:5, Funny)
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...
Read this in Lumbergh's voice (Score:4, Funny)
Not surprised (Score:3)
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.
Back to basics (Score:3)
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...)
Open letter to psychotic US politicians. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Russia is saber rattling. The missile defenses system isn't about Russia at all.
More stupid rants like your and we will see the return of polish joke.
" You killed millions of people in the Middle East, "
you might want to check your numbers there, slick.
Main credit goes to Poland's Solidarity movement (Score:3)
A trade union... Look it up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union) [wikipedia.org]
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:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
See, that's the problem. Russian missiles are set to travel over the North Pole, not over Europe. This system would only defend against missiles targeting Europe, and even then its debatable. Of course, let's not even start on submarine and mobile launchers.
This system is no threat to Russia or MAD.
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: (Score:3)
What about their subs? Their subs are ancient compared to the what the US possesses.
So? So long as the Uranium arrives safely at its destination than it doesn't matter how old their subs are.
Re:Let me get this straight (Score:5, Insightful)
Theory goes that, in the presence of multiple nuclear powers with overwhelming destructive capability, only the ability to launch a second-strike of sufficient magnitude to dissuade anybody from launching a first-strike against you is a viable defense.
If one party obtains an actually functional anti-missile system, they neutralize everybody else's second-strike capacity, and thus enjoy the ability to launch first-strikes at their pleasure.
Unfortunately, most of this stuff was hammered out under the cold war logic of an environment with ~2 main actors, both presumed to be rationally self-interested, with easy attribution of nuclear strikes, and other favorable conditions. It doesn't work nearly as nicely if you go to N actors, introduce actors who are either irrational or interested in various apocalypses, or dream up delivery mechanisms that make attribution hard...
(The cynics might also argue that both the US and Russia aren't entirely uninterested in playing at cold war, since they both have decades of experience with it, a glut of high-level policy types who were trained under the assumption that that would be their job, and both have discovered that 'dialog with North Korea' and 'Fundamentalist Sandbox Meatgrinder' are lousy games. Plus, the cold war was probably the historical high water mark for buying awesome toys from defense contractors without actually having to learn their weaknesses the hard way all that often...)
Who needs MAD? Self destruction does the job (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Pot, kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
Signed,
An American
It's about time a major power steps up. It had to take Russia to do it. Shame on your Europe.
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:Pot, kettle (Score:4, Insightful)
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
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
Also, would you consider a missile launch silo as an offensive or defensive system?
How can you be stupid is beyond me.
Re:Pot, kettle (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't wait for you to explain me what exactly were strikes against Iraq and Afghanistan about.
Also, would you consider a missile launch silo as an offensive or defensive system?
How can you be stupid is beyond me.
Where did anyone ever say the US was building missile silos? This whole thing is solely over a missile defense network. Those are made up of radar, ABM batteries, and usually a few SAM batteries as well for protection against ground attack fighters. ABM batteries are not built in silos. And since when where Iraq and Afghanistan preemptive strikes against defensive systems? Afghanistan was the equivalent of striking your opponents camp. It was their training ground, their support base, where they went to refit, replan, and retrain. This is also where the initial, provoking attack was planned for and trained for. Afghanistan was a legitimate military target, and the broad support that went into the invasion proved so. The only ones against it were your staunchly anti-war people and, I'm sorry to say, as long as 2 humans are left alive on this planet, there will be war.
Now, Iraq is where it gets a bit tricky. Had Bush been wanting to get Saddam for a while? Yes, that's pretty well documented. Was AQ in Iraq? Not until after we invaded it. Had Saddam used WMDs before? Yes, both on his own civilian populations and against military targets. Were there any WMDs in Iraq? Not that were found. Did he want us to think he had WMDs? Yes. Essentially, he bluffed, we called it. International relations is like poker, the highest stakes game you can imagine. What Russia is doing right now is raising on pocket 2s. They're posturing, nothing more, and trying to get the US to back down.
Re:Pot, kettle (Score:5, Interesting)
It is not a defensive system, not to the Russians anyway. It's true enough that it could be used defensively against Iran and North Korea, but it has an offensive role in an all out war against Russia. It breaks MAD, and while MAD is a ridiculously suicidal way to run a planet, it did manage to get us through the cold war pretty well.
See, here's the thing. The Russians know that even with their aging fleet of ICBMs, they can still overload any conceivable missile defense system. If the US has N interceptors gaurding New York City all Russia has to do is launch N+1 missiles at it (actually considerably less since the interception success rate is going to be much lower in real combat situations). And that ignores all the relatively cheap anti-interception technologies that could be used. So why are they so pissed? Because the US also just happens to also have a fleet of nuclear launch capable submarines, a fleet of stealth bombers, and hundreds of nuclear cruise missiles (which have been mothballed but could be easily brought back into service). A properly designed first strike could hit literally hundreds of targets inside Russia with nuclear weapons with less than 30 minutes warning.
Now, it's kind of hard to coordinate your counter attack when every military base in the country is a glowing glass crater. That's not to say they wouldn't have missiles, they'd have plenty, and the commanders in charge of them would have the authority to launch them, but launch them where? Without the communication and planning, the counter attack is going to be staggered, disorganized, and concentrated. Exactly the situation where a missile defense like the one the US is deploying could be effective against the Russians. The Russians are pissed about it (and about Star Wars in the 80s) because it gives the US a real first strike capability against them.
And yes, right now nuclear war is unlikely. But what about 30 years from now? What about 50? 50 years ago the US and Russia were staring at each other off the coast of Cuba, waiting for the other one to blink to decide who would be blamed for starting nuclear Armageddon. A lot can change in half a century.
Re: (Score:3)
As has been stated, this system is worthless against a Russian attack on the US. For starters, the shortest distance from Russia to the US is over the Arctic. This is the path the missiles would take and this system is worthless against missiles following a northern trajectory.
Next, you mention America's submarine and bomber force. You do realize that Russians have those too, right? While they do not have stealth bombers, their bomber force is more than adequate and their submarine force is either secon
Re:Pot, kettle (Score:5, Insightful)
.. defensive installation that we have offered them unfettered access to ..
Signed, An American Soldier
You are only presenting selected parts of the picture there, Soldier:
a) A missile array is a missile array: with todays modular technologies "defensive" can become "area denial" or "offensive" in a matter of minutes; if you are saying otherwise (i.e. that the array "poses no threat") bear in mind that you are not trying to convince the evening news audience, but experienced war generals that command the world's largest arsenal;
b) how about the Russians offering you "unfettered access" to a similar system in Cuba, established there to protect their interests (perhaps Russian businesses in the US) from potential radical central and south american rogue elements;
c) I am no pronounced military strategist, but opening many fronts (as the US is doing in the present era) comes with benefits as well as costs: there is NO WAY today's superpowers can tackle conflicts like the ones the US is maintaining, and at the SAME time take on skirmishes with another superpower: the Russians are well aware of this, and they know that they absolutely can vaporize the array and get away with it- and they are letting you know that they will do it. Remember that China is also a superpower, and good luck getting them on the table and heaving them your way while engaged in tens of other conflicts, especially in a decade or so when their orbital, ICBM, naval and electronic warfare capabilities will be much more enhanced in comparison with the present day.
d) as a soldier, I am sure you know that the one who strikes first, strikes many times and keeps on striking, get's to win. This array is just too close, its implementation is seen as an act of aggression, and you and I or anybody else might claim otherwise but that is of no consequence: the truth is that the Russians see it as a threat, and they are issuing a warning that if built, they are going to blow it into pieces. Not you, not your cities, not your country: only a base such as this one.
Bottomline, you can't have the cake and eat it. So go on, be my guest, spend billions of dollars and thousands of manhours to see it all vaporized in a jiffy, ignite global tensions, destroy families and sacrifise young soldier's lives (I don't expect the array to be unmanned when it gets hit) to back up a bunch of retarded arguments.
Re:Completely unnecessary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
My understanding is that the missile system IS for our defense. The idea is to place the defenses closer to the origin of the missiles, so they have more time to react and can destroy them further from populated areas. (like over the Atlantic maybe?)
It also opens up options like using fast, guided micro-missiles that tail their target for an easy hit at low relative speeds, instead of something that has to be pinpoint precise and catch the target head-on at high relative speeds.
Why not adapt a missle defense system to our current fleet of submarines...or if not feasible, create a new class of submarines to meet the requirements. As long as we aren't using kinetic energy weapons or lasers, it should be do-able.
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:l2history (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a repost of the beginnings of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Just with Poland and the Czech Republic instead of Turkey.
I think I'd be OK if Russia put a defensive missile installation in Cuba. The key word here is DEFENSIVE.
All well and good but I don't even trust my country's government to be truthful so if another country's goverment uses the word DEFENSIVE I'm not going to believe it for a nanosecond.
Re:l2history (Score:4, Insightful)