Russia issues new missile threat

[Jocker_89]

Russia has raised the idea of basing new missile forces in Kaliningrad, close to Poland and Lithuania.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40963000/gif/_40963571_kaliningrad_map203.gif

First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov linked the possible move to US plans for a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Russia has already threatened to hit back by targeting missiles at Europe.
Mr Ivanov said there would be no need to move extra forces to Kaliningrad if the US agreed to use Russian facilities instead of the Polish and Czech bases.
Russia says the US plans for a limited missile defence shield, including bases close to Russia's borders, represent a threat to its security.
It has proposed that the US should use a radar facility in Azerbaijan, and another installation currently being built in southern Russia.
'Effective response'
US President George W Bush has described the idea as "innovative" but indicated that the US will press ahead with the plans for a radar station in the Czech Republic, and a missile base in Poland.



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42820000/gif/_42820163_us_missile_inf203.gif


The US says its missile shield is not directed at Russia, but at what it considers "rogue states" such as Iran.
"If our proposals are accepted, the need will disappear for Russia to deploy new missile weaponry in the European part of the country, including in Kaliningrad Region," Mr Ivanov said, on a visit to Uzbekistan.
"If our proposals are not accepted - and I cannot rule that out... an asymmetrical and effective response has been found."
Correspondents say Mr Ivanov's comments indicate that US hopes of toning down Russia's Cold War-style rhetoric by hosting a relaxed weekend meeting between President Vladimir Putin and Mr Bush in Maine have not borne fruit.



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42914000/gif/_42914597_us_missle_bases_map416.gif


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6269408.stm

[Flamming_Python]

Well I was under the impression that this was nothing new. But perhaps i'm wrong. Either way, it's the stick.

Yesterday Putin did make a proposal at a strategic alliance with America and extended the offer to use a being built in Southern Russia as well as the facility in Azerbaijan. That's the carrot. Although this article has barely made mention of it.

[Midav]

Who ****ing cares? It's their territory.

If that's what they need as a security blanket then by all means, let em base missiles in East Prussia errr Kaliningrad p-)

[wholagun]

making such statements serves to confirm former communist states' fears of a resurgent Russia.

Either way it's interesting to watch the security dilema play out. I even wrote an essay for my international security course at university about this topic and now it's playing out just as i predicted.:)

[seer]

Who cares just ignore them and get more patriots.

[Jocker_89]

Who cares just ignore them and get more patriots.

Good and simply solution :)

[ZhukovG]

Well more weapons on Kaliningrad no problem i use to read that its a military territory of Russia, and I think USA would said NYET to use that ex soviet Radar base

[Thor]

Who cares.

Our politicians are encouraged to increase defence budgets = Good for us

Russia gets a reputation as being a war mongler = Bad for them

[wholagun]

Who cares.

Our politicians are encouraged to increase defence budgets = Good for us

Russia gets a reputation as being a war mongler = Bad for them

that's a good point!

[Mamont]

Russia gets a reputation as being a war mongler = Bad for them

Exxellent example of media power and the art of brainwashing.

[Ghostrider_NL]

Our politicians are encouraged to increase defence budgets = Good for us

here here, let's hope the dutch goverment thinks so to

quitte frankly, i can't understand why america didn't agree on building a '' joint'' misille defence centre at Azerbaijan. Not only is it a great change for a US-russian military cooperation but it also isolates the ''rogue states''. It seems like G.W bush wants russia in quarantine, so that there not able to make any kind of attack on europe or US ground.

[Jocker_89]

here here, let's hope the dutch goverment thinks so to

quitte frankly, i can't understand why america didn't agree on building a '' joint'' misille defence centre at Azerbaijan. Not only is it a great change for a US-russian military cooperation but it also isolates the ''rogue states''. It seems like G.W bush wants russia in quarantine, so that there not able to make any kind of attack on europe or US ground.

Because USA does't want to share their modern military equipment with Russia and also americans don't trust russians

[jetsetter]

Perhaps because Azerbaijan shares a border with Iran. That could put a defense site in harm's way.

[Thor]

Exxellent example of media power and the art of brainwashing.
You should leave your motherland if you feel that way.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Exxellent example of media power and the art of brainwashing.

"media power and the art of brainwashing" ?

Of course! Russia would never do anything provocative:

Moscow could aim nuclear weapons at targets in Europe as part of "retaliatory steps" if Washington proceeds with building a missile defense system on the continent, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Monday. Link (http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/06/04/russia.putin.ap/index.html)



quitte frankly, i can't understand why america didn't agree on building a '' joint'' misille defence centre at Azerbaijan. Not only is it a great change for a US-russian military cooperation but it also isolates the ''rogue states''. It seems like G.W bush wants russia in quarantine, so that there not able to make any kind of attack on europe or US ground.

Relying on Russia to guarantee access to the site is a significant deficiency.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Just an observation.....Russia, fields a new class if ICBM. They are currently in devolopment of new classes of warships, and aircraft. And, have in the past made otherwise threatening statements towards NATO expansion into the former eastren bloc countries, and just recently made statements to the effect of starting a new cold war.

Granted, the USA has not done anything to defuse the situation, but westren military build up and modrenization is not on the scale of Russias conventional and nuclear forces.

I think, a joint missle defense shield with Russia,would be a really bad idea in the long run, considering their current direction and build up.

[Xaito]

of course USA can't accept Russia's proposal because the shield is against russia :)

[Thor]

The missile shield is a defensive measure. Just another air defense system aimed to save the lives of the civilian population.

[Flamming_Python]

Just an observation.....Russia, fields a new class if ICBM. They are currently in devolopment of new classes of warships, and aircraft. And, have in the past made otherwise threatening statements towards NATO expansion into the former eastren bloc countries, and just recently made statements to the effect of starting a new cold war.

Granted, the USA has not done anything to defuse the situation, but westren military build up and modrenization is not on the scale of Russias conventional and nuclear forces.

I think, a joint missle defense shield with Russia,would be a really bad idea in the long run, considering their current direction and build up.

Russia fields a new type of ICBM... at the same time as drastically reducing it's total nuclear arsenal, ahead of the pace of similar American efforts.

True, Russia is developing new classes of warships and aircraft. Are you going to tell me with a straight face, that the West isn't? Not even to mention other neighbours of Russia & the CIS such as China, Iran, etc...

Meanwhile the Russian military has stepped up arms purchases and research... at the same time as continuing to reduce the number of its forces (army was cut down as recently as last year) and getting rid of obselete equipment.

Yes the country has a right to be cautious about a military alliance, that geographically, seems to be spreading in a nice, neat little ring throughout all the states that are both neighbours of Russia, and not so friendly to Russia. What would you think in our shoes?

There won't be a new cold war anytime soon despite the rhetoric and allegations... which stepped up a notch recently due to plans to build anti-missile interceptors directly in the path of Russian ICBM's. And yes while it seems like a logical idea to minimise the risk of potential enemy missiles entering your territory, we are talking about America and Russia here, not some small-scale conflict. The minute one side stops being scared ****less about the capabilities of the other one, the world strategic balance is going to take a turn for the worse, with smaller, more radical countries being encouraged to develop detterents of their own and aiming to form their own centres of power.

[Flamming_Python]

The missile shield is a defensive measure. Just another air defense system aimed to save the lives of the civilian population.

Refer to my last paragraph in my post above.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

of course USA can't accept Russia's proposal because the shield is against russia :)
Nice try :)

But No, just one of Russia's clients.

Maybe if you guys weren't selling so much nuclear technology to them we wouldn't have these problems.
As I understand it, most of the actual missile tech is coming from NK.

I would suspect that the missile tech and nuke tech are intended to come together at some point in the future.

[Flamming_Python]

Nice try :)

But No, just one of Russia's clients.

Maybe if you guys weren't selling so much nuclear technology to them we wouldn't have these problems.

As I understand it, most of the actual missile tech is coming from NK

I would suspect that the missile tech and nuke tech are intended to come together at some point in the future.

So would I... no-one likes that prospect much (including Russia which is why it again delayed the completion of the reactor to 2008), but at the end of the day, Iran is no more going to destroy Israel, than America is going to spread peace & democracy all over the world.

Reality and Israel's own army of Nuclear Warheads will come into play.

[Thor]

Russia fields a new type of ICBM... at the same time as drastically reducing it's total nuclear arsenal, ahead of the pace of similar American efforts.

True, Russia is developing new classes of warships and aircraft. Are you going to tell me with a straight face, that the West isn't? Not even to mention other neighbours of Russia & the CIS such as China, Iran, etc...

Meanwhile the Russian military has stepped up arms purchases and research... at the same time as continuing to reduce the number of its forces (army was cut down as recently as last year) and getting rid of obselete equipment.

Yes the country has a right to be cautious about a military alliance, that geographically, seems to be spreading in a nice, neat little ring throughout all the states that are both neighbours of Russia, and not so friendly to Russia. What would you think in our shoes?

There won't be a new cold war anytime soon despite the rhetoric and allegations... which stepped up a notch recently due to plans to build anti-missile interceptors directly in the path of Russian ICBM's. And yes while it seems like a logical idea to minimise the risk of potential enemy missiles entering your territory, we are talking about America and Russia here, not some small-scale conflict. The minute one side stops being scared ****less about the capabilities of the other one, the world strategic balance is going to take a turn for the worse, with smaller, more radical countries being encouraged to develop detterents of their own and aiming to form their own centres of power.
Russia is not really part of the world's strategic balance and there is no "fear" of Russia. Soviet Union was a threat because they were aggresive and unpredictable and driven by a totalitarian ideology.

NATO is not an aggressive force but a defensive alliance. NATO has problems getting it's members to contribute to the fighting in the South of Afghanistan and you believe they are going to declare war on Russia?

[dimasorokine]

The missile shield is a defensive measure. Just another air defense system aimed to save the lives of the civilian population.

LOL

-Dima

[Flamming_Python]

Russia is not part of the world strategic balance and there is no "fear" of Russia. Soviet Union was a threat because they were aggresive and unpredictable and driven by a totalitarian ideology.

NATO is not an aggressive force but a defensive alliance. NATO has problems getting it's members to contribute to the fighting in the South of Afghanistan and you believe they are going to declare war on Russia?

When did I say that? Yugoslavia aside, NATO is a mostly defensive organisation true, but largely the worries are politicial. Russia doesn't want to lose political influence in Eastern Europe & CIS anymore than America desires to lose influence in Europe, South America, Middle East and the NATO block.

The Military aspect is important as well. Not because there is a fear that NATO would immediately decide to go all out on Russia, but because it is every military's job to ensure security of their country, give their country EVERY possible advantage, and ensure that no other country will dare to attack it, attack it's allies (already happened), or undermine it's influence (already happening).

But really, although the idea of a NATO-Russian war seems ridiculous now, permit me to paint a picture for you Thor. Middle East is in chaos and is being attacked by everyone, some more than others. Middle East has oil. Russia has oil. Yet Russia is not being ripped to shreads for its huge amounts of resources. Why? The military for one thing. The nukes especially, that would have a lot of their bark taken out of them if all of a sudden the West becomes impervious to their effect by building a missile shield.

It's a paranoia that Russians have as a people (individually Russians always have more pressing concerns), that everyone is after their lands and resources. Of course everyone else always laughs it off; "what is there to take?", "we are friends", but history has always shown otherwise. Paranoia is really not a good thing, and I understand that the West had the same fear about Russia back in the cold war. But building a missile shield, expanding a military alliance, etc... all to Russia's borders is not the best way to show that you come in peace.

As for the non-military aspect, NATO could in the future transform into an organisation more focused on Energy security for example, in which case Russia would fear a situation whereby the consumers will dictate terms to the suppliers (Russia).

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

So would I... no-one likes that prospect much (including Russia which is why it again delayed the completion of the reactor to 2008)Just slowing down contract work doesn't count as being constructively engaged in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.


but at the end of the day, Iran is no more going to destroy Israel,
than America is going to spread peace & democracy all over the world.Hey now, that wasn't very nice :) But I think we've manage to spread something that is probably better than democracy, or at least ancillary to it: capitalism.



Reality and Israel's own army of Nuclear Warheads will come into play.
I wouldn't necessarily assume that Israel is the only target.

Nuclear-armed ballistic missiles are mainly a tool of coercion, and could pose a problem for our other allies in the Gulf.

Listen, I think Russia has a very legitimate interest in this missile system, its design and how it's deployed, but it doesn't look like the confrontational way Putin is choosing to engage on this is really bearing any fruit for Russia.

[Xaito]

NATO has problems getting it's members to contribute to the fighting in the South of Afghanistan and you believe they are going to declare war on Russia?
It doesn't always have to be war - NATO will have more means to apply pressure on Russia which Russia obviously doesn't want.

[seer]

of course USA can't accept Russia's proposal because the shield is against russia :)

The shield is meaningless to Russia militarily but it anchors Poland and Czech Republic solidly in the western sphere of influence. This is what Putin can’t stand.

[Flamming_Python]

Just slowing down contract work doesn't count as being constructively engaged in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Well helping Iran build a nuclear reactor in no way helps Iran get nuclear weapons, assuming Russia maintains the proper controls.

What is at issue is meaningful economic sanctions on Iran. Preventing Iran from reducing its reliance on hydrocarbons for energy production, is a pretty big blow. But then again Russia relies on Iran's support on issues in the Caspian Sea region, where Iran is the only country which fully supports Russia's position & initiatives in that area. So it is unlikely that Russia will go too far with the sanctions, and if it does, China is always ready to fill in its place, so Russia might as well pocke the money for itself.

As for the delay... well it's just the way things are done in international politics. No-one would announce publically a 180-degree turn in a major decision. From what I heard, the White House was very happy that Russia chose to delay the project, and has just announced that it will do so again. I guess the hope is that Iran will become frustrated with Russia and cancel the deal, or sign it up with someone else, which will take more time & money. Like I said in the paragraph above though, there is no guarantee that this is what will happen


Hey now, that wasn't very nice :) But I think we've manage to spread something that is probably better than democracy, or at least ancillary to it: capitalism.

;)

No offense intented, just merely commenting on how reality usually gets in the way of stated missions and ideals.

As for democracy/capitalism, i'd argue that the latter if anything, prevents the former, but that REALLY IS a discussion for another time that I REALLY DON'T want to get involved in right now. :)



I wouldn't necessarily assume that Israel is the only target.

Nuclear-armed ballistic missiles are mainly a tool of coercion, and could pose a problem for our other allies in the Gulf.

Listen, I think Russia has a very legitimate interest in this missile system, its design and how it's deployed, but it doesn't look like the confrontational way Putin is choosing to engage on this is really bearing any fruit for Russia.

Well if you mean that Nuclear missiles will allow Iran to become a major power in the region, able to challenge American influence there without fear of reprisals, than I think you're right.

This sort of situation is not in Russia's interests, and in Russia's interests at the same time. It would prefer American influence there to Radical Islamic, but then again it wouldn't want the amount of American influence there that the region currently has.

If you're, on the other hand talking about a mad country that nukes everyone else only to be nuked back x10 itself, I can't really imagine that situation. I can certainly see your point about coercion though. I would think that this is precisely what worries Russia and many other countries in the region.

As for Putin and his ways, time will tell I guess. I always saw him as being more competent on the Home Turf than on the International Arena, but he has surprised me lately and it seems like Russia is not only getting taken seriously as a major influence in parts of the world, but also many countries are syphathising with it's position and drawing closer to it.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Russia fields a new type of ICBM... at the same time as drastically reducing it's total nuclear arsenal, ahead of the pace of similar American efforts.

True, Russia is developing new classes of warships and aircraft. Are you going to tell me with a straight face, that the West isn't? Not even to mention other neighbours of Russia & the CIS such as China, Iran, etc...

Meanwhile the Russian military has stepped up arms purchases and research... at the same time as continuing to reduce the number of its forces (army was cut down as recently as last year) and getting rid of obselete equipment.

Yes the country has a right to be cautious about a military alliance, that geographically, seems to be spreading in a nice, neat little ring throughout all the states that are both neighbours of Russia, and not so friendly to Russia. What would you think in our shoes?

There won't be a new cold war anytime soon despite the rhetoric and allegations... which stepped up a notch recently due to plans to build anti-missile interceptors directly in the path of Russian ICBM's. And yes while it seems like a logical idea to minimise the risk of potential enemy missiles entering your territory, we are talking about America and Russia here, not some small-scale conflict. The minute one side stops being scared ****less about the capabilities of the other one, the world strategic balance is going to take a turn for the worse, with smaller, more radical countries being encouraged to develop detterents of their own and aiming to form their own centres of power.
I would buy the logic in your post, except for one small detail...the US has trimmed its icbm force considerably, with the retirement of the Peacemaker,and the conversion of SLBM subs under the start treaty to conventional weapons platforms.

As for the conventional forces...Russia, still leads sales of military equipment to third world countries. And, unfortunatly, someof these countries, have agendas different from other westren countries. AIrcraft sales and weapons sales to Venezuela, Iran, just to name two. And lets not forget the latest Russian military comments made a couple of months ago concerning basing a missle defense site in former eastren bloc countries.

Although the west is modrenizing its forces, mainly conventional,it does not compare to the scope of the recent acelerated Russian defense build up. And, the USA, has drawn down its nuclear arsonal, when Russia has built hers up...

Thats the scary stuff. The really scary stuff is the instability of power within the Russian government(despite Putins crack downs, communism desires to make a comeback) the proliferation of stolen technology of Russian technology, and the rise of violent crime syndicates withing major Russian cities.

On the plus side,and to be fair, Russia has done alot to curb violent crime syndicates, has phased out alot of older equipment, and put a clamp on stolen nuclear technology. But,it still is not enough to combat the problem..(case in point...even 1 missing nuclear weapon is enough to raise concern)

I think that a missle defense shield inside of europe is a good thing. Not because it cheezes the mighty bear off, but because it provides defense against incoming missles from states such as Iran, and other states that would aquire such weapons.

and as for the Russians complaining about the expansion of NATO into former eastren bloc countries...they might have more to worry about, like the militants inside of the Russian borders, than a threat from NATO.

I am not a fan of Russia. Even after the "cold war", Russia, still presents a bigger threat than any one of us thinks.

[Switek]

Hm... o'rly?

I getting bored of hering of new Russians threats. Are Russians coming? No it's an example of of another paper war. Mr. Putin's comrades are trying to to make a media attention. That's all...

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Hm... o'rly?

I getting bored of hering of new Russians threats. Are Russians coming? No it's an example of of another paper war. Mr. Putin's comrades are trying to to make a media attention. That's all...

THAT..is true. But, the scary part, Breznehaf and the former Soviet government officials all said the same things.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Here is an interesting thought....I bet, to please all sides when they build this missle defense site, the USA and the host country will probably have based inside of the command centers, a Russian observer, there to make sure that the radar is not being used to monitor Russian military activity, both radio and targets, and to make everyone happy.

[Xaito]

Hm... o'rly?

I getting bored of hering of new Russians threats. Are Russians coming? No it's an example of of another paper war. Mr. Putin's comrades are trying to to make a media attention. That's all...

you speak of Mr. Putin but what are your leaders doing, eh?
I'd say Putin has more media attention then he needs already.
This missile shield thing is one big provocation and Russia's reaction until now was exactly what some people wanted to make Russia look bad - the invitation to use russian radars etc is a good answer though - until now it was "why does Russia object a defense system" now maybe some people will ask "why does USA not want to cooperate with Russia if the shield is not meant against it?"

[Switek]

you speak of Mr. Putin but what are your leaders doing, eh?
I'd say Putin has more media attention then he needs already.
This missile shield thing is one big provocation and Russia's reaction until now was exactly what some people wanted to make Russia look bad - the invitation to use russian radars etc is a good answer though - until now it was "why does Russia object a defense system" now maybe some people will ask "why does USA not want to cooperate with Russia if the shield is not meant against it?"

The funny thing is that Mr Putin knows that ABM installations in Czech Rep. an Poland are quite sure... He's nothig agaist them. The key is what Russia gets in return. It's this all deal about with from the very begining :)

[8thidpathfinderpower]

you speak of Mr. Putin but what are your leaders doing, eh?
I'd say Putin has more media attention then he needs already.
This missile shield thing is one big provocation and Russia's reaction until now was exactly what some people wanted to make Russia look bad - the invitation to use russian radars etc is a good answer though - until now it was "why does Russia object a defense system" now maybe some people will ask "why does USA not want to cooperate with Russia if the shield is not meant against it?"

That would be a great question..but for one small problem.....what would happen if a missle was launched from lets say, Iran, towards London, England, and the useage of the missle defense system became critical? Would Russia object, because Iran is a close ally? And, make a problem out of deployment? OR...would they steal the technology and make a counter technology, and sell it to Iran, so they can counter the defense shield?

The big issue, would be trust. Not only from the USA, but from the host country where the site would be based. And, here is when alot of politics come into play.......to many Nos for it to happen

[ZhukovG]

The missile shield is a defensive measure. Just another air defense system aimed to save the lives of the civilian population.

that is a good point so I think russia should put some missiles on Cuba just in case to protect population from attacks maybe from venezuela or Haiti rofl

[Xaito]

That would be a great question..but for one small problem.....what would happen if a missle was launched from lets say, Iran, towards London, England, and the useage of the missle defense system became critical? Would Russia object, because Iran is a close ally? And, make a problem out of deployment? OR...would they steal the technology and make a counter technology, and sell it to Iran, so they can counter the defense shield?

The big issue, would be trust. Not only from the USA, but from the host country where the site would be based. And, here is when alot of politics come into play.......to many Nos for it to happen


first of all - since when does Iran have nukes in the first place? Oh right it hasn't.
second - if an agreement is made why do you think Russia won't keep its word? Because Russia likes Iran so much? ;) Don't expect Russia to defend Iran if they start shooting nuclear missiles at europe (although they don't have any and no reason to do it in the first place :D ) - you might forget it while listening to your media but Russia is part of europe as well and has neither an interest in European countries beeing wiped out nor conquered by Iran or similar countries.

That is all BS in the first place though - Poland wants the base to mock Russia and to mark itself as US property hoping that this will impress Russia.
And US wants it because its an investment that can't make loss - making Russia look bad and have a radar and ABM's right under its nose can't hurt.
If they'd build it in russian controlled territory or use russian installations they would'nt get any benefits from the investment (as Iran has no nukes) and that's why they won't agree.

[MZKT]

Since NATO and US leaders already lied once about the east-expansion-plans, Putin should not believe the "only-10-missiles"-claim. 10 missiles will be only the beginning and the ABM project will spread further.

[Brute]

but westren military build up and modrenization is not on the scale of Russias conventional and nuclear forces.




Although the west is modrenizing its forces, mainly conventional,it does not compare to the scope of the recent acelerated Russian defense build up.

Exactly whom are you trying to kid here, guy?

One only needs to look at the number of Raptors already in service to make your theory fly out of the window. Or the Virginias, or the Arleigh Burke class which the US has been churning out like hot cakes.

These are just a few examples of the US military buildup, without even mentioning the rest of the West.

While Russia has been out of the game for nearly two decades, forced to make do with what was essentially an outdated soviet legacy stuff, the US has never stopped modernizing and arming itself to the teeth.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

first of all - since when does Iran have nukes in the first place? Oh right it hasn't.
second - if an agreement is made why do you think Russia won't keep its word? Because Russia likes Iran so much? ;) Don't expect Russia to defend Iran if they start shooting nuclear missiles at europe (although they don't have any and no reason to do it in the first place :D ) - you might forget it while listening to your media but Russia is part of europe as well and has neither an interest in European countries beeing wiped out nor conquered by Iran or similar countries.

That is all BS in the first place though - Poland wants the base to mock Russia and to mark itself as US property hoping that this will impress Russia.
And US wants it because its an investment that can't make loss - making Russia look bad and have a radar and ABM's right under its nose can't hurt.
If they'd build it in russian controlled territory or use russian installations they would'nt get any benefits from the investment (as Iran has no nukes) and that's why they won't agree.

Well,what is to say Iran doe not have nuclear weapons already? That is my forst question for you...do not believe everything you read in the media. I find it alarming that Iran is experimenting with nuclear technology to begin with. (And,have you ever heard of a airburst weapon called a dirty bomb? A hint to an alternative weapons release)

And back on topic...I would trust the Russian government as far as I can throw them. Russia, by all rights should not be throwing fits about a missle defense site in Poland..its Polish terrority,and according to you and everyone else..they can do what they want.

Beides all that, NATO should be the least of Russian military worries. But, sadly it is not. They still build up nuclearweapons stockpiles, and they still somewhat rattle the sabre of the cold war.

The missle defense shield is not about attacking Russia, or is it about Iran attacking anyone. I listed Iran as a possible threat to us nuclear weapons because they either posess or are about posses nuclear weapons.

So, we have to agree to disagree. I do not trust the Russian government. Too many variables. And, if one of those variables gets lost, Russia,is long on the way to becoming a bigger threat than that of the cold war.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Exactly whom are you trying to kid here, guy?

One only needs to look at the number of Raptors already in service to tell you to kindly STFU. Or the Virginias, or the Arleigh Burke class which the US has been churning out like hot cakes.

These are just few of the examples of the US military buildup, without even mentioning the rest of the so-called West.

While Russia has been out of the game for nearly two decades, forced to make do with what was essentially an outdated soviet legacy stuff, the US has never stopped modernizing and arming itself to the teeth.

Well, go sell your logic on ebay. I am sure some sucker will buy it....I am not. As I said before, I do not trust the Russian government. But I do not make forigen policy. My government does. And, as for my government wanting to put a missle defense base in Europe...why should Russians feel so afraid? If they faer NATO expansion, I see no reason...just Valdimier Putin wanting to shift domestic problems onto a old, outdated concept of a threat by NATO. And, the Russian military looking for excuses to field a new line of bombers, fighters, and ships, and SLBMs and ICBMs, as a front to cover up the fact that they have very little domestic manufacturing capability, and must rely on military sales and a non existnt threat to verify their need for weapons and to provide jobs to a frail Russian economy.

BACK ON TOPIC....the missle defense shield, would not pose a threat to Russian security. Fact is, it would keep their deployment of new IRBMs and ICBMs and SLBMs in check. Not to mention threats from other states that would either posses or going to posses nuclear missle technology.

[Brute]

The fact of the matter is that your theory about Russia outpacing the West in arms procurement is not supported by facts. Maybe in the future, but not now. Just matching the US alone would be quite an achievement...

[koozya]

The missile shield is a defensive measure. Just another air defense system aimed to save the lives of the civilian population.
please it was discussed a lot of time how can this "defencive" system can be used as offencive, so for gods sacke stop saying that.

[asch]

And, the Russian military looking for excuses to field a new line of bombers, fighters, and ships, and SLBMs and ICBMs
wtf?
mind your own military industry, honey. and please, tell me why USofA still top role seller in the arms market, eh?

[Xaito]

Well,what is to say Iran doe not have nuclear weapons already? That is my forst question for you...do not believe everything you read in the media. I find it alarming that Iran is experimenting with nuclear technology to begin with. (And,have you ever heard of a airburst weapon called a dirty bomb? A hint to an alternative weapons release)

And back on topic...I would trust the Russian government as far as I can throw them. Russia, by all rights should not be throwing fits about a missle defense site in Poland..its Polish terrority,and according to you and everyone else..they can do what they want.

Beides all that, NATO should be the least of Russian military worries. But, sadly it is not. They still build up nuclearweapons stockpiles, and they still somewhat rattle the sabre of the cold war.

The missle defense shield is not about attacking Russia, or is it about Iran attacking anyone. I listed Iran as a possible threat to us nuclear weapons because they either posess or are about posses nuclear weapons.

So, we have to agree to disagree. I do not trust the Russian government. Too many variables. And, if one of those variables gets lost, Russia,is long on the way to becoming a bigger threat than that of the cold war.

I don't believe everything that the media writs - the media tells that they work on nukes ;) while the only thing known is that they have some nuclear research project.

You have sayd about 10 times now that you don't trust the Russian government - tell me why the Russian government is supposed to trust you?
You also complain about Russia fielding new ICBM's but think its totally OK to put up your bases all around the world especially near Russia.
The missile shield story is one of the best examples why Russia has to modernize its nuclear missiles - and believe it or not they will help build trust between USA and Russia - because its easier to trust somebody if you know you can nuke him if he betrays you ;) - if somebody surrounds your country with his NATO friends and puts up a ABM shield in front of your face while telling "its not against you" with a big grin on his face that will hurt trust.

[GazB]

Just an observation.....Russia, fields a new class if ICBM.

The SS-18 and SS-19 ICBMs that form the backbone of the current Russian ICBM fleet are Ukrainian and must be replaced within the decade. Of course they need a new missile able to carry large numbers of warheads to replace such weapons... the alternative is to produce 600 Topols in the next few years and I can imagine your reaction to that. The Moscow treaty sets the number of strategic warheads the Russians and the US has. The new ICBMs just allow the Russians to maintain that level of warheads in service without having to greatly increase production, which would be expensive.


They are currently in devolopment of new classes of warships, and aircraft.

Which class of warship are they building that is more capable than a US carrier group? The US has 13 carrier groups, the Russians have barely one. The US is part of a military alliance called NATO that adds further carriers and ships to their global fleet... what are the Russians building that will change the current balance. Which version of the Flanker is in service that competes evenly with the F-22 or F-35?


And, have in the past made otherwise threatening statements towards NATO expansion into the former eastren bloc countries, and just recently made statements to the effect of starting a new cold war.


Secretary of State James Baker (under bush snr) promised Russia that NATO would not expand after the cold war, then the US promised NATO would not expand to include former Soviet republics... now it promises that the ABM system will not be used against the Russians... Two proven lies... what value the current promise?



Granted, the USA has not done anything to defuse the situation,

It has lied and made things worse.


but westren military build up and modrenization is not on the scale of Russias conventional and nuclear forces.

No where near the scale... western military spending is 1000% higher than Russian spending and continues to increase.


I think, a joint missle defense shield with Russia,would be a really bad idea in the long run, considering their current direction and build up.

It would be a step that would help develop trust. The alternative is a step away, which adds more enemies for the west. The west can deal with Japan and Germany and they did far worse things to the west than Russia ever did. In fact the West is currently sidling up to the Ukraine and Georgia... birthplaces of Lenin, Laventi Beria, and Stalin himself.


The missile shield is a defensive measure. Just another air defense system aimed to save the lives of the civilian population.

So why was the first ever US ABM system set up around an ICBM site?


NATO is not an aggressive force but a defensive alliance.

Yes, the propaganda war. The bad guys are bad because they are the aggressors. But really which side had the better global capability to invade countries... NATO or the WP. Amusing how just after WWII all the "war ministries" and "war departments" suddenly became the "ministry of defence", and the "defence department". Nothing changed except the stationary... letter heads and envelopes...


NATO has problems getting it's members to contribute to the fighting in the South of Afghanistan and you believe they are going to declare war on Russia?

What has Afghanistan got to do with NATO? Afghanistan never attacked NATO... Afghanistan and Iraq and Kosovo for that matter are evidence that NATO is not defensive. When did Iraq or Kosovo or Afghanistan invade a NATO country in Europe?
If you want to claim Afghanistan aided in 11/9 then that makes no difference. NATO didn't intervene in the Falklands or the Vietnam war or Korea either...


Just slowing down contract work doesn't count as being constructively engaged in preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

The slowing down has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. The reactor type is not useful in creating nuclear weapons. When it becomes operational it will consume fuel rods, not make them into weapons grade Uranium, or produce Plutonium. It is not a breeder reactor.The slowing down is due to Iran not paying on time and nothing else. The reactor they are building is of no use in the creation of nuclear weapons. It is the fuel preparation facilities they are putting together so Iran can make its own fuel that could potentially be used to make weapons grade material.


But I think we've manage to spread something that is probably better than democracy, or at least ancillary to it: capitalism.


That was already there. You don't think the US invented capitalism do you? You only created consumerism. Not the same thing.


Listen, I think Russia has a very legitimate interest in this missile system, its design and how it's deployed, but it doesn't look like the confrontational way Putin is choosing to engage on this is really bearing any fruit for Russia.

He is offering options that don't even seem to be getting any consideration. More than what the US is doing. It started by stating it will build missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech republic. It is still saying it will do that despite the reactions it has been getting. It seems acting unilatarally is what it does best. Democracy it seems does not require compromise when it doesn't involve people who vote in your electorate...


The shield is meaningless to Russia militarily but it anchors Poland and Czech Republic solidly in the western sphere of influence. This is what Putin can’t stand.

The Shield is not meaningless. It is a anti missile system located directly on the path Russian missiles would take to hit targets in Europe. In fact if you look at the positions, Czech republic and Poland are both closer to northern Europe than southern europe so for an attack from the southerly direction... ie Iran, it is not in a very good place at all. Conversely for an attack from Russia it is in a much better place.
The other factor is that the radar is not a conventional radar but an over the horizon back scatter radar that will look directly into Russian and ME airspace. Ideal for Israel to monitor Syria and Iran and other countries, and also useful for the US to monitor tests within Russian airspace they otherwise had no reliable radar coverage of.


I guess the hope is that Iran will become frustrated with Russia and cancel the deal, or sign it up with someone else, which will take more time & money.

Who else can they pay to make the reactor?


Well if you mean that Nuclear missiles will allow Iran to become a major power in the region, able to challenge American influence there without fear of reprisals, than I think you're right.


Keeping in mind the results of the last NK long range missile test I wouldn't hold my breath. If nuclear weapons in the region are so destabilising why does Israel and Pakistan have them?


the US has trimmed its icbm force considerably, with the retirement of the Peacemaker,and the conversion of SLBM subs under the start treaty to conventional weapons platforms.


Both sides have done that. Under START II both sides had 6,000 strategic warheads each. Under the Moscow Treaty both sides must have 2,000 each. Of course both sides are withdrawing weapons. The fact that the Russians had less to withdraw is largely because they withdrew some weapons quickly earlier to save operational costs. The problem that many of the Russian weapons are now maintained by foreign companies (ie SS-19 and SS-18) means they must be replaced... ie SS-18s and SS-19s withdrawn and RS-24s introduced to replace them.


As for the conventional forces...Russia, still leads sales of military equipment to third world countries.

And how does that effect anything at all? Russian companies are selling more weapons to foreign countries than they are buildign for their own forces. There are more Su-30s in service in India, China, Indonesia etc than in Russian service. The fact that the Russians are exporting equipment means little to the Russian forces themselves. If NATO invaded Russia it would be Su-27Ps and Su-27s that defend Russia, not Indian Flankers or Chinese Flankers.


And, unfortunatly, someof these countries, have agendas different from other westren countries.

So all western countries have the same agenda? Really? And who is to say this western agenda is OK?


AIrcraft sales and weapons sales to Venezuela, Iran, just to name two.

Iran and Venezuala have democratically elected leaders. In both cases they have airforces with US aircraft that the US has decided not to supply support for. Little wonder they might turn to another supplier with a better reputation for adding strings to deals.


And lets not forget the latest Russian military comments made a couple of months ago concerning basing a missle defense site in former eastren bloc countries.


What? That in time of war they would be targetted and dealt with? What do you expect them to say? The ABM missiles will be ignored and allowed to be used agaisnt Russia? When the Soviets decided to base missiles in Cuba was the US reaction better or worse than the Russian reaction in this case?


Although the west is modrenizing its forces, mainly conventional,it does not compare to the scope of the recent acelerated Russian defense build up. And, the USA, has drawn down its nuclear arsonal, when Russia has built hers up...


So the F-22 do not exist, the B-2 is rubbish is it, how about the F-35, or the Typhoon, or Rafale? What makes you think the Russian nuclear arsenal has increased? Are they going to keep those Ukrainian missiles in service and produce new ones as well?


On the plus side,and to be fair, Russia has done alot to curb violent crime syndicates, has phased out alot of older equipment, and put a clamp on stolen nuclear technology. But,it still is not enough to combat the problem..(case in point...even 1 missing nuclear weapon is enough to raise concern)


And there is no organised crime in the west. Organised crime was actually worse under Yeltsin. And what stolen military technology are you talking about? Man portable air defence missiles like Stinger? The west handed them out in afghanistan and angola and how many did they get back?


I think that a missle defense shield inside of europe is a good thing. Not because it cheezes the mighty bear off, but because it provides defense against incoming missles from states such as Iran, and other states that would aquire such weapons.


So you think the Iranians are so stupid they will build ICBMs after the US has spent billions making ABM systems in Europe? A simple cruise missile flying low is much harder to detect, can change path so its origin is hard to pin point and accurate enough to hit point targets with or without a nuclear warhead... and it is much cheaper to make, easier to conceal, and easier to deploy. A cargo container ship could carry thousands ready to launch from their own containers designed to look like shipping containers. Start a new cold war, spend billions of dollars and be no safer. In fact an ICBM only makes sense as a deterrent when the opponent already has hundreds of ICBMs. How many do you think the Iranians can make and how reliable will they be... and then of course there is the problem of actually making a reliable nuclear warhead for it too.


and as for the Russians complaining about the expansion of NATO into former eastren bloc countries...they might have more to worry about, like the militants inside of the Russian borders, than a threat from NATO.


NATO is a military organisation. History has shown that large military organisations with two main power blocks can lead to trouble... WWI for example.


Would Russia object, because Iran is a close ally? And, make a problem out of deployment? OR...would they steal the technology and make a counter technology, and sell it to Iran, so they can counter the defense shield?

Russian radar technology is already very good. There is little American OTH radar technology that would be worth stealing.


The big issue, would be trust. Not only from the USA, but from the host country where the site would be based. And, here is when alot of politics come into play.......to many Nos for it to happen

So if the US can't trust Russia then why should Russia trust the US?


I find it alarming that Iran is experimenting with nuclear technology to begin with. (And,have you ever heard of a airburst weapon called a dirty bomb? A hint to an alternative weapons release)


Have heard it mentioned by those desperate to create a threat where there is none. A so called dirty bomb is simply conventional explosives spreading radioactive material. A bit like a fire in a chemical factory... wear protective suits and the cleanup takes longer... nothing at all like the devastation of a nuclear explosion.


And back on topic...I would trust the Russian government as far as I can throw them. Russia, by all rights should not be throwing fits about a missle defense site in Poland..its Polish terrority,and according to you and everyone else..they can do what they want.


But it is not a Polish military base, but an American military base with american missiles.


Beides all that, NATO should be the least of Russian military worries.

Why? Because you say so? Because NATO says so? NATO is a military organisation that is expanding. Why shouldn't Russia be worried?


They still build up nuclearweapons stockpiles, and they still somewhat rattle the sabre of the cold war.


So they are building more nuclear weapons... pray tell how they are avoiding the Moscow Treaty?


I listed Iran as a possible threat to us nuclear weapons because they either posess or are about posses nuclear weapons.

Based on what? The Iranians can't even process raw crude oil into petrol. They have to export it and pay another country to create their fuel for them. Of course they are going to want nuclear power to generate electricity. They can produce their own fuel rods for that as they have large reserves of yellow cake Uranium. That means that they can simply export their oil and not have to pay another country to process it and reimport it back to use as an energy supply. When you make your living selling alcohol it makes no sense to only employ current alcoholics as staff.


So, we have to agree to disagree. I do not trust the Russian government.

You'd be an idiot to trust any government... they change.


And, as for my government wanting to put a missle defense base in Europe...why should Russians feel so afraid?

Because as far as they are concerned the only difference between what the west did to (west) germany and Japan after WII and what the west is currently doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is that Russia still has nuclear weapons.
Right now their best defence is nuclear deterrence... Note not nuclear weapons... which they have never used in anger and probably hope never to have to use
An ABM system in Europe erodes that deterrence. In 15 years when weapons totals are perhaps 1,000 or less per side and the US has B-2s and F-22s and all sorts of new subs etc and NATO includes every country in Europe except Russia the west might get the idea that perhaps a preemptive strike by stealth aircraft and stealthy cruise missiles might destroy enough Russian nuclear weapons to make the NMD and ABM system in Europe and perhaps a similar system in Japan able to withstand any weapons the Russians might have left. If the world gets to that point then a nuclear attack becomes much more likely, which is in no ones interests... especially if the western planners overrate their chances... as they have repeatedly... Kosovo in 7 days anyone?


And, the Russian military looking for excuses to field a new line of bombers, fighters, and ships, and SLBMs and ICBMs,

Hahahaha... US "defence" spending tops half a billion a year but it is the Russians that are in the middle of a military buildup.


as a front to cover up the fact that they have very little domestic manufacturing capability, and must rely on military sales and a non existnt threat to verify their need for weapons and to provide jobs to a frail Russian economy.


So what you are saying is there are no Russian made goods Russian people can buy? Is it all imported? How on earth could they afford to buy only imported goods!!!


BACK ON TOPIC....the missle defense shield, would not pose a threat to Russian security. Fact is, it would keep their deployment of new IRBMs and ICBMs and SLBMs in check. Not to mention threats from other states that would either posses or going to posses nuclear missle technology.


The US missile shield will serve a good excuse for Russia to unilaterally withdraw from the INF treaty and the CFE treaty.

The US will build its bases and the Russians will build IRBMs and land based cruise missiles to target those bases and other targets perhaps in Europe and also perhaps in China and Japan.

Everyone is happy.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

The fact of the matter is that your theory about Russia outpacing the West in arms procurement is not supported by facts. Maybe in the future, but not now. Just matching the US alone would be quite an achievement...

The reason why matching the USA dollar for dollar in defense spending would prove futile, is because the USA spends far more on retirement benifits, standards of living improvements for active duty personnel, and research and devolopment for weapon systems than Russia does. And the costs involved alone for the USA and other westren countries prohibit buying weapon systems in the numbers that Russia fields.

I hope this explanation explains where most of the costs involved with US Defense spending goes.

Although the Russian government is replacing 1 for 1 its ICBM force, the USA has decommisoned the Peacemaker class of ICBM(the most modren family of US land based ICBMs), and is modrenizing the vernrable MinutemanIII class of ICBM instead of devoloping any current replacement for the missle. And, as I stated before, Russia has fielded totally new and improved classes of ICBMs, whether to replace old systems or not.

As for the USA pulling out of the ABM treaty, they had to do that before they devoloped and fielded the current class of missle intercepters, so that argument is mute. But, whether Russia responds in kind to the proposed USA/Polish missle defense base, would be seen.

In defense of the missle defense shield, it is a sound and a logical idea, especially considering the possibility of states with agendas that run contrary to westren ideals of peace and stability.



FYI....the Soviet Union had already fielded and based a land based interceptor prior to the fall of the Soviet Union.

[Xaito]

westren ideals of peace and stability.
and energy (oil, gas etc), minerals and money...
you're very naive imo.

(http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=115540 this one is interesting - it also explains why the allies don't pull out of Iraq - peace and stability as long as war isn't a lucrative investment :) )

[Midav]

People! Look at yourselves!

How likely is war going to be between NATO and Russia? Zero to none.

It is almost, read almost, a guarantee that nothing will happen.

Both sides are overreacting to a system that Russia can already overwhelm as is. On top of that, Kaliningrad is their territory. Who cares if they base nukes there? On top pf that, they are building new missiles that can overcome the ABM system. They have said so themselves.

So what is any of this proving on here? I am not afraid of Russia or NATO attacking. Should there be war between Russia and NATO there will be a lot of nukes flying. ABM won't do squat.

So lay off the testosterone, folks.

[Lapata]

The missile shield is a defensive measure. Just another air defense system aimed to save the lives of the civilian population.

Thats what you think...

And may I add nice essay GazB.

[Flamming_Python]

People! Look at yourselves!

How likely is war going to be between NATO and Russia? Zero to none.

It is almost, read almost, a guarantee that nothing will happen.

Both sides are overreacting to a system that Russia can already overwhelm as is. On top of that, Kaliningrad is their territory. Who cares if they base nukes there? On top pf that, they are building new missiles that can overcome the ABM system. They have said so themselves.

So what is any of this proving on here? I am not afraid of Russia or NATO attacking. Should there be war between Russia and NATO there will be a lot of nukes flying. ABM won't do squat.

So lay off the testosterone, folks.

I agree, let's stop this silly discussion, everyone is going to stick to the opinion they are entitled to, and no-one has the right to say whether it's right or wrong, because no-one can predict the future.

Bottom Line Is: Americans don't trust Russia, Russians don't trust Americans

Sad it has come to this stage again but oh well, that's life. Now let's try and focus on keeping the nukes in their silo's, it's the least we could hope for :)

[Switek]

Used ammo in future Russia - NATO war

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/1973/4bb2dd403d551ec62afc23ebt9.jpg

And pic of some casualities

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/9800/37vx5.jpg

[Flamming_Python]

And pic of some casualities

http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/9800/37vx5.jpg

Is that you in the bottom Switek? p-)

[Switek]

Is that you in the bottom Switek? p-)

Nope, you can find me in such posture only in my bed... ;)

[Midav]

Now THAT'S a war I could indulge in lol :p

[Calanen]

Who cares.

Russia gets a reputation as being a war mongler = Bad for them

Thor I know English is your second language, and please dont take offence (ie your English is very good), but I think you've created a new insult in English - the 'mongler'.

I'll have to start using it when someone cuts me off in traffic:

'Up yours you mongler!'

[Atlantic Friend]

So, Russia threatens to do something it has every right to do. And should be expected to do whenever it suits Russia's best interests.

For all the media hype, I don't see how this is dramatic here. It's like Great Britain saying it might deploy weapon systems in a British overseas territory, or France saying it is going to upgrade its sub-based missiles.

Sounds more of a political gesture than a genuine indication Vladimir Putin is on the war path.

As long as I can savor Putinka peppered Vodka, that's okay with me. Now, if Russia decides a Putinka blocus, it's all-out war.

[MZKT]

Although the Russian government is replacing 1 for 1 its ICBM force,

You should count better. 300 Topol, 150 SS-19 and 36 SS-18 will leave service by 2015. Current production rate is 7 Topol-M p.a. Not to mention that 1-warhead Topol-M isn't a equal replacement for 10 warhead-SS-18.


the USA has decommisoned the Peacemaker class of ICBM(the most modren family of US land based ICBMs),

As answer russuans retired RT-23, their best ICBMs.


and is modrenizing the vernrable MinutemanIII class of ICBM instead of devoloping any current replacement for the missle.

RS-24 is nothing else but a topol-M with 3-MIRV upper stage. Therefore also a modernization project.


And, as I stated before, Russia has fielded totally new and improved classes of ICBMs, whether to replace old systems or not.

RS-24 is not fielded. And Topol-M was started in early 90s since the old Topol was partly from non-russian republics. Even if they want to modernize old systems instead of fielding new they can't. Yushmash is now ukrainian property.


FYI....the Soviet Union had already fielded and based a land based interceptor prior to the fall of the Soviet Union.

In accordance to ABM-treaty one city or ICBM-site were allowed to have ABM-That's moscows A-135-ring. It absolutely complies with the treaty. USA planned the same for Vandenberg AFB but abandoned it.

[eugenlitwin]

Russia has raised the idea of basing new missile forces in Kaliningrad, close to Poland and Lithuania.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40963000/gif/_40963571_kaliningrad_map203.gif

First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov linked the possible move to US plans for a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Russia has already threatened to hit back by targeting missiles at Europe.
Mr Ivanov said there would be no need to move extra forces to Kaliningrad if the US agreed to use Russian facilities instead of the Polish and Czech bases.
Russia says the US plans for a limited missile defence shield, including bases close to Russia's borders, represent a threat to its security.
It has proposed that the US should use a radar facility in Azerbaijan, and another installation currently being built in southern Russia.
'Effective response'
US President George W Bush has described the idea as "innovative" but indicated that the US will press ahead with the plans for a radar station in the Czech Republic, and a missile base in Poland.



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42820000/gif/_42820163_us_missile_inf203.gif


The US says its missile shield is not directed at Russia, but at what it considers "rogue states" such as Iran.
"If our proposals are accepted, the need will disappear for Russia to deploy new missile weaponry in the European part of the country, including in Kaliningrad Region," Mr Ivanov said, on a visit to Uzbekistan.
"If our proposals are not accepted - and I cannot rule that out... an asymmetrical and effective response has been found."
Correspondents say Mr Ivanov's comments indicate that US hopes of toning down Russia's Cold War-style rhetoric by hosting a relaxed weekend meeting between President Vladimir Putin and Mr Bush in Maine have not borne fruit.



http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42914000/gif/_42914597_us_missle_bases_map416.gif


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6269408.stm


just one question why are Poland, C.R.? i guess Kurdistan, Georgia, Bulgaria closer to sensitive arias

[Ghostrider_NL]

Perhaps because Azerbaijan shares a border with Iran. That could put a defense site in harm's way.

this is a intresting theory

[Sergei]

just one question why are Poland, C.R.? i guess Kurdistan, Georgia, Bulgaria closer to sensitive arias

because Czech over-the horizont radar would allow to see the Russian airspace up to Urals.

I guess the only viable solution for RF is to come up with some sort of jamming device and put it somewhere in Kaliningrad or Transdniestria. Extensive works are already underway.

The warmongering rhetorics of Putin is for the internal consumption only, since on the international level nobody trusts the Uncle Sam for a very long time now.

[hawkeye88]

just one question why are Poland, C.R.? i guess Kurdistan, Georgia, Bulgaria closer to sensitive arias

It's bcoz Poland is on the middle of all the strategic point and it is the gate...

[eugenlitwin]

It's bcoz Poland is on the middle of all the strategic point and it is the gate...

is it all about RF and it´s nothing to do with Bedouins or Iran at all?

[hawkeye88]

is it all about RF and it´s nothing to do with Bedouins or Iran at all?


just one question why are Poland, C.R.? i guess Kurdistan, Georgia, Bulgaria closer to sensitive arias

What do you thnk if the US place such things in Poland? Why don't Georgia or somewhere else?? :-(

Firstly, it is a member of Nato organization.

Secondly, The US probably want to cover Europe, esp. The UK from Iran's or somebody's hell. Though, Russia may send its submarines to launch its Nukes below the surface to attack UK or other European Country. So, I think it is not bcoz of the Russia. For what, Russia can do so, rite? It must be placed in Sweden to protect Europe and little baby, the GB, from Russia. Maybe some say right, Mr. Putin just want to attract media attention. Because the missile got nothing to do with his country. otherwise, if he want attack EU someday. Nah, that must be a new treat to him... Agree?

Thirdly, maybe a little bit political. Poland is one of the pro-US, that's why it sent its SF unit, GROM, to Iraq to assist US force. So, the US no need to worry losing its missile defence system. Right or not?

Lastly, As I have said, Poland is on the middle of all points.. http://images.google.com.sg/imgres?imgurl=http://www.map-of-europe.us/europe-map.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.map-of-europe.us/&h=644&w=795&sz=117&hl=en&start=9&tbnid=FAltBn9BWx5eUM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=143&prev=/images%3Fq%3Deuropean%2Bmap%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den

Agree? ;-)