New Russian Weapons and Missile Defense

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Doesn't that seem hypocritical to you? Don't you see the consequences of a policy like that? Some people apparently have not gotten the memo that the cold war is over.

How is it hypocritical ?


And bunker busters are small weapons, they would have been worthless in a war against the soviets

Originally Posted by Publius

But WOULD we do that? No, we'd attack them.

We didnt attack Pakistan, India, or North Korea.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

We didnt attack Pakistan, India, or North Korea.

Then why are we threatening Iran?

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Actually, yes. Thats exactly the idea. It's kept world powers honest for the last 50 years or so.

They don't have an Eastern Block anymore. Why is it their business to tell Europe how to defend itself these days?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Then why are we threatening Iran?

Because the entire world wants them to not go nuclear.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Because the entire world wants them to not go nuclear.

Actually not the entire world, just parts of the world, and even then even the opposition comes primarily from those who already have nukes.

Even of those that oppose, fewer still think that military force should be used.

[thomez]

The missile defense shield does nothing except start a new arms race. A 2nd Cold War is brewing as Russia takes over the private sector in oil production and spends the profits on weapons technology - at the same time that they stifle their own democracy and start to look like a dictatorship more and more.

[thomez]

As far as policing the world of new nuclear nations:

21 Solutions to Save the World: The Nuclear Option

I wish I could post the whole article

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by thomez

The missile defense shield does nothing except start a new arms race. A 2nd Cold War is brewing as Russia takes over the private sector in oil production and spends the profits on weapons technology - at the same time that they stifle their own democracy and start to look like a dictatorship more and more.

I wrote this about 4 years ago concerning the retrenchment of a multipoalr world and a new "luke warm" war
----------------------------------------------------

mididoctors


-------------------------------------------
More trouble on the horizon for US planners. There is a potential axis forming between Saudi and Russia based on a bilateral cartel. These two states are the biggest producers of oil in the world today. Neither state can be dismissed as both contribute about 10Mbd of oil to the world market total of around 78Mbd. This substantive quantity is a controlling interest in global decision making and has several ramifications for the struggle in Iraq.

1) Russia may actually agree to deploy assets to Iraq to help stabilise the situation

2) US projection policy across the middle east would be destroyed by SUCCESS at the UN round.

3) Saudi defence interests are greatly increased by this step as US threats will have no weight even in the absence of the insurgencey cycle.

The problem is that Russian deployment would put a break on any strong-arm behaviour by the US in the region as any credibility would have to be tied to Russian compliance on the ground. Thus dominating the oil reserves in the middle east would be a no go.

The good news is that Russian deployment would liberate Saudi’s need to support Iraqi insurgency as a defensive measure (insurgencey cycle) as Iraqi stabilisation would NOW be in their favour, compared with the absence of a Russian presence in the region. Thus Saudi could move to suppress money and materials being used against Iraqi stability. It could even help stop terrorism in general and hence be a good thing for the WoT as Saudi would agree to reduce Checneyan and AQ funding .The problem is even if the US was to be left in control of Iraq it would have seeded global power in a GIGANTIC switch towards Russia!

To the US a UN deal that allows for Russian intervention of influence throughout the region is defeat on a level above the WoT and the other global issues claimed for the war(proliferation etc). The idea that we are in WW4, a new cold war against Islamic terror is rather naive as in essence the ability to end that terror on a major scale is just a few steps away.

The combining of Saudi and Russian interests was in hindsight obvious in that the US relinqished influence and control as a result of WoT (something forced by Saddam in the first place) and left a vacuum that had to be filled.

two options for the US here are

1. Accept Russia as equal partner in global affairs but at least gain some credibility in WoT and world stability.

2. Sabotage the UN round yourself so as to isolate the Saudi-Russian axis from Iraq and press on regardless.

The first is really the answer they have been publicly looking for. If it is spurned then we can conclude that the US planners do not consider this status quo as acceptable AND that the WoT is secondary to the need to dominate the ME oil supplies.

If we find ourselves in a situation where the Russians and the Saudis form a strong relationship but no UN resolution is forth comming then we may be in very deep water indeed.

But an agreed degree of Russian influence inthe region at a level never seen before may have its own problems..

(The question would then be could Iran and Syria maintain pressure in conjunction with Iraqi rebels in Iraq. If they could then even a big UN deal could have some rather big falling outs).

The French are marginalised by all this and in a bizarre twist of fates need to gain favour with the US, as the Saudis would have replaced France with Russia directly. It would be in France’s interest to demand a high price for a UN deal as they are being left with little to show for their billigerent stance. I doubt the US will look favourably at attempts of French reproachment. as they would by their rash behaviour would have handed the ball to Russia. this was not forseen.

One of the original issues the Russians wanted to negoitiate about back in 2002 when sought approval was given lip service by the Bush admin was missile defence.

Missile defence in a missile war is a potential AGGRESIVE weapon

effctive (percieved) missile defence allows those with sole ownership to conduct pre-emptive missile warfare on aopponent who uptil then had MAD to relie on.

Boris
london

[Stylerod]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

effctive (percieved) missile defence allows those with sole ownership to conduct pre-emptive missile warfare on aopponent who uptil then had MAD to relie on.

Boris
london

The US offered to share the technology with Russia, as I mentioned before.

U.S. may let Russia share missile shield

But defense official says plan will move ahead with or without Moscow

WASHINGTON - The United States could offer to protect Russia from emerging missile threats in an effort to ease Moscow�s anger over Pentagon plans to place missile defense systems in the former Soviet bloc, a senior U.S. defense official said Tuesday.

Eric Edelman, the Pentagon�s under secretary of defense for policy, said the United States and Russia would start talks on ways to cooperate in missile defense.

One option is to share data retrieved by sensors that Washington wants to place in central Europe, Edelman said. Edelman said the United States also could offer to use its missile defenses to protect parts of Russia that Moscow�s missile defenses do not cover.

�If we can help them defend themselves against this same threat, I think we�re happy to do that,� he told reporters at the Pentagon.

The Pentagon wants to place a radar system in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland to shoot down long-range missiles that the United States believes Iran will be able to launch by 2015.

That plan has generated fierce criticism in Russia. Moscow sees the system as an encroachment on its sphere of influence, and some Russian officials have said the U.S. system would target Russia, something the Pentagon denies.

France and Germany have expressed concerns too, with some officials saying it could lead to a new arms race.

Edelman said cooperation on defenses could alleviate worries about a race to build and acquire ever more capable offensive missile assets.

[Donkey®]

So let's look at this objectively...does the American population have a say in any of this? What if we don't want to build bases and missile shields in Europe? If Europe wants to protect themselves from "rogue states with missiles" then let them do it themselves. Why the fuck do we have to be everywhere doing shit we shouldn't be doing? Get the hell out of Europe and Asia and most certainly get the fuck out of the middle east. This is just ridiculous at this point.

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

They don't have an Eastern Block anymore. Why is it their business to tell Europe how to defend itself these days?

And who are we to say they can't develop bigger better weapons to through the defenses. And who are they to say we can't develop weapons that can hit them before they deploy these weapons. And who are we to say they can't put their weapons on auto-fire in case they can't attacked and can't respond.................

[mididoctors]

Originally Posted by Stylerod

The US offered to share the technology with Russia, as I mentioned before.

yes that is an interesting point..though it would put Russia as a junior partner, not to mention reliant on US goodwill for its defense


Boris
london

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by mididoctors

yes that is an interesting point..though it would put Russia as a junior partner, not to mention reliant on US goodwill for ts defense


Boris
london

On the flip side the russians would know exactly what the missile defense was capable of and can develop weapons that can specifically avoid the system.

The russians won't accept US help in that manner anyway. It would be a blow to their ego.

The bottom line that right wingers have a hard time understanding is that more guns does not equal more peace.

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity - Carlin

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

So let's look at this objectively...does the American population have a say in any of this?

Call your Congressman and Senator. Vote in President, Congress, Senate that disasgrees with the missile shield.

Originally Posted by DosEquis

On the flip side the russians would know exactly what the missile defense was capable of and can develop weapons that can specifically avoid the system.

A massive russian attack would penetrate any shield. Especially with sub launched missiles.

[Kytro]

The defense shield tech is fairly east to overcome, it relies on the incoming missile being on a known trajectory

[RMNIXON]

Condi agrees with Dick Nixon on this one:


POTSDAM, Germany (AP) -- Russian attitudes are locked in the past, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday, adding that the United States is perplexed by the current fracas with Russia over a planned U.S. missile system in Europe.

"We want a 21st Century partnership with Russia, but at times, Russia seems to think and act in the zero-sum terms of another era," Rice said, referring to the suspicions and territorial ambitions of the Cold War.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Condi agrees with Dick Nixon on this one:


POTSDAM, Germany (AP) -- Russian attitudes are locked in the past, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday, adding that the United States is perplexed by the current fracas with Russia over a planned U.S. missile system in Europe.

"We want a 21st Century partnership with Russia, but at times, Russia seems to think and act in the zero-sum terms of another era," Rice said, referring to the suspicions and territorial ambitions of the Cold War.

Russia is stuck in the past??? Our mere development of NEW nuclear weapons and missile defense, along with our imperialist policy to "spread freedom" by our rifles is just as stuck as they are. They didn't say a damn thing until PNAC started pushing their agenda.

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Who really cares? If in fact a European based missile defense system is to protect against Iran, North Korea, etc., then what does it matter that Russians can overcome it?

If the system protects against the missiles of rogue nations, and Russia needs their super duper missiles to make themselves feel better, then what's the problem? We and Europe are protected, and Russia feels safe as well.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Who really cares? If in fact a European based missile defense system is to protect against Iran, North Korea, etc., then what does it matter that Russians can overcome it?

If the system protects against the missiles of rogue nations, and Russia needs their super duper missiles to make themselves feel better, then what's the problem? We and Europe are protected, and Russia feels safe as well.

Exactly!

What are they crying about!

I only suggested they were full of hypocritical shit! I never said they should not build better missiles!