Anti-missile site in Poland

[Thunder]

i find it insane for the usa to NOT see this as a threat to Russia. if they built a similar base in Cuba or Mexico, we would probably react the same way.

if we want to shoot down missiles from the middle east or asia...we should put missile batteries in Italy, Greece, or Japan.

this is indeed a threat to Russia, or atleast a critical adjustment to the balance of power against them. they are right to be pissed.

[Architect]

Aye. One of the Scottish papers the other day made reference to a US policy which appeared centred on poking the Russian bear with a pointy stick.

[Thunder]

a good compromise would be to allow a joint anti-missile site....in Havana...=)

[fuelair]

i find it insane for the usa to NOT see this as a threat to Russia. if they built a similar base in Cuba or Mexico, we would probably react the same way.

if we want to shoot down missiles from the middle east or asia...we should put missile batteries in Italy, Greece, or Japan.

this is indeed a threat to Russia, or atleast a critical adjustment to the balance of power against them. they are right to be pissed.
And, so.........:)

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Actually, with the Russian missiles launching from where they are, the Poland defense just barely reaches the path of one of their launch points. It is horribly located for preventing Russian missiles. It is good for guarding against Iranian missiles, which would travel straight through the range of Poland, according to the maps they showed on CNN.

Also, I laughed at the Russian defense that the US didn't prove that it wasn't targeting Russian missiles. C'mon, Logic 101 people?

[Thunder]

how would the USA react if Russia put a anti-missile site in Cuba? In Mexico?

how about anywhere in the Western hemisphere?

remember the Cuban missile crisis?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

how would the USA react if Russia put a anti-missile site in Cuba? In Mexico?

I don't know. I'd be confused. Did Haiti get the bomb?

how about anywhere in the Western hemisphere?

How should I know? And why should I care? It doesn't change that the missiles in Poland are very crappily located for defending the US from Russian missiles.

remember the Cuban missile crisis?

Were the missiles at Cuba part of a defensive anti-missile shield?

[Tailgater]

Actually, with the Russian missiles launching from where they are, the Poland defense just barely reaches the path of one of their launch points. It is horribly located for preventing Russian missiles. It is good for guarding against Iranian missiles, which would travel straight through the range of Poland, according to the maps they showed on CNN.

Also, I laughed at the Russian defense that the US didn't prove that it wasn't targeting Russian missiles. C'mon, Logic 101 people?

Good point. Missiles are not launched based on a rectangular map on the wall.

IIRC, didn't the US offer Russia to be involved in the project?

[Dymanic]

It's not about missiles. It's about posturing. We're talking about 10 measly interceptors. As a realistic defense against Russia's nuclear missile capability, that's about as much protection as you'd get from passing out umbrellas, and they know it. It's the idea they object to; the slippery slope. Current technology does not offer any realistic defense against a large scale missile attack. The best you could hope for would be to blunt the inevitible counterattack which would follow a unilateral first strike. For that reason, missile defense systems are inherently destablilizing. There is an invisible line in the sand here, and the MOU is a toe across it. It's not a serious threat, but it does seem at least a bit rude. I would have said "rude and uncalled for", but I'm not entirely sure that it is not a reasonable response to Russia's behavior in recent days.

[Thunder]

indeed. the missile system itself is not the threat. its the encroachment of NATO.

if the warsaw pact moved to Mexico or Canada or the Bahamas..the USA would be going bonkers.

we should disband NATO..for its main goal was to create an allliance against the USSR.

we should create a new alliance, and invite Russia to join.

[Ziggurat]

i find it insane for the usa to NOT see this as a threat to Russia. if they built a similar base in Cuba or Mexico, we would probably react the same way.

Not exactly. Lest you forget, Reagan offered to share missile defense technology with the Russians, and they still opposed the idea of developing it. Russia doesn't like missile defense anywhere, because it reduces the threat of nuclear weapons, and nuclear weapons are the only way they can keep parity with the US.

if we want to shoot down missiles from the middle east or asia...we should put missile batteries in Italy, Greece, or Japan.

You say that as if we don't have any in Japan. But we do (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/29/asia/AS-GEN-Japan-Missile-Defense.php).

this is indeed a threat to Russia, or atleast a critical adjustment to the balance of power against them. they are right to be pissed.

Well, yes, it does shift the balance of power against them. Which is a good reason to do it.

[Corsair 115]

It's not about missiles. It's about posturing. We're talking about 10 measly interceptors. As a realistic defense against Russia's nuclear missile capability, that's about as much protection as you'd get from passing out umbrellas, and they know it. It's the idea they object to; the slippery slope. Current technology does not offer any realistic defense against a large scale missile attack. The best you could hope for would be to blunt the inevitible counterattack which would follow a unilateral first strike.And what can a "missile shield" do against submarine-launched ballistic missiles? You've got perhaps six minutes of warning of those coming in, as compared to about thirty minutes of warning with ICBMs.

[Darth Rotor]

i find it insane for the usa to NOT see this as a threat to Russia. if they built a similar base in Cuba or Mexico, we would probably react the same way.
No. See this thread, posts by whiplash.

Once again, for those playing the game at home: a BMD system in Cuba is no threat to the US. The US has no interest in nuking Cuba. BMD systems can be used as regular IAD systems, in some cases, and IAD is not a threat, it is a defensive shield.

Parky, one more time, slowly.

You and I are neighbors in the year 900. I have x amount of metal. If I use it to build a shield, I am less of a threat to you than if I use it to build a sword, due to the nature of the thing.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

we should create a new alliance, and invite Russia to join.
No, we should invite Russia to join NATO. We had a decent relationship begun with them via Partnership for Peace, as with other eastern bloc nations, but sadly other confidence building measures didn't support that aim.

A damned shame.

Dismantling NATO may have utility for other reasons, but the excuse being to make it easier for Russians to join some collective security organization -- they are already in the UN -- is like wrecking your car so you can rebuild it, from its parts, as a go kart.

DR

[moon1969]

Oh come on. How is it a threat to Russia? Is Poland an independent country? Does Russia have the right to tell to an independent country what to do and what not to do? Russia has no right to intervene in Polands internal affairs.

[quixotecoyote]

Parky, one more time, slowly.

You and I are neighbors in the year 900. I have x amount of metal. If I use it to build a shield, I am less of a threat to you than if I use it to build a sword, due to the nature of the thing.

DR

Unless, of course, you both already have swords.

[Dymanic]

Russia doesn't like missile defense anywhere, because it reduces the threat of nuclear weapons...
Exactly wrong. A missile defense shield increases the threat of nuclear weapons, for the same reason that a man with both a sword and a shield is more of a threat than a man with only a sword. If your adversary believes that you may be more likely to attack him if you can do so from behind the protection of a shield, and if he catches you making such a shield, then he suddenly becomes a greater threat to you, because he is then motivated to attack you before you finish it.

Mutually Assured Destruction is your friend.

[Texas]

a good compromise would be to allow a joint anti-missile site....in Havana...=)
Ukraine just joined the MDS.

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5921543/Ukraine-to-join-in-USled-missile-shield-in-Europe
Ukraine has agreed to take part in a missile defence system designed by the United States to protect Western countries. The government in Kiev defended its decision for military co-operation with the West, saying Russia cancelled a bilateral treaty with Ukraine earlier this year.

A few days ago, Poland and the United States reached agreement on the siting of missiles on Polish territory. These, together with radar installations in the Czech republic, make up the missile shield. Russia is fiercely opposed to the defence system and has threatened retaliatory measures.

The Ukrainian offer to co-operate with the US on the shield comes as the situation surrounding Russia's military operations in Georgia is increasingly tense. Ukraine's pro-Western President Viktor Yushchenko has strongly criticised Russia and is threatening to impose restrictions on Russian navy vessels' use of the port of Sebastopol in Ukraine.

Russia is being isolated.

[Darth Rotor]

Exactly wrong. A missile defense shield increases the threat of nuclear weapons,
No, not in Poland. Yes if you are one of the two superpower nodes, USSR/US, a model that broke about ten years ago, and will continue breaking as China and India become Powers of the first water.

Poland has a nominal ability to deflect a few ballistic missiles, conventional or nuclear, but since they are not a nuclear power, and we don't want them to be, Russia doesn't want them to be, your MAD appeal is mad.

MAD only worked in a bipolar world (in both senses :D ) which IS NOT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN, nor will we for the next generation.

The Pacific Rim. Embrace it as the critical region for the next fifty years.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

For all in this thread: I wish you folks would look into the future, a possible future wherein NATO is slowly dissolved and EU does indeed make up a third, fourth, or fifth pole in a multipolar power structure.

Damnit, think strategically.

NATO has, and continues to work on at a glacial pace, an integrated IADS, which was once called ACCS. If NATO dissolved, EU inherits considerable C2 backbone, and with themselves as the third pole, or fourth if you include China, cannot play the MAD game. They must have some defense versus Ballistic Missiles, and planes, of varying capability. This move is in fact rational if you think in China time, or strategically (beyond ten years) to a day when EU is in fact a power bloc.

I did some work on C2 in NATO a decade ago, and we had to think strategically along these lines since there was a lot of political momentum for an independent European Security Identity. It may or may not come to pass, and it assumed that it would often use already paid for and imbedded NATO capability.

The scenario also works for Europe if NATO remains, since the multi polar world is already a reality.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

Actually, with the Russian missiles launching from where they are, the Poland defense just barely reaches the path of one of their launch points. It is horribly located for preventing Russian missiles. It is good for guarding against Iranian missiles, which would travel straight through the range of Poland, according to the maps they showed on CNN.

Also, I laughed at the Russian defense that the US didn't prove that it wasn't targeting Russian missiles. C'mon, Logic 101 people?

Just have to see why the Iranian would be interested to attack, uh.. Poland?
You are young but you have to start to filter up what the (American) media tell you, uh?

[fuelair]

indeed. the missile system itself is not the threat. its the encroachment of NATO.

if the warsaw pact moved to Mexico or Canada or the Bahamas..the USA would be going bonkers.

we should disband NATO..for its main goal was to create an allliance against the USSR.

we should create a new alliance, and invite Russia to join.
right

[Matteo Martini]

Russia is being isolated.

Mm..
Holds veto power in the Security Council.
I would not expect the Russians back any further US-proposed sanction to Iran from now on..

right

Why would Russia join a US-led organization?
They would not be interested.
It would have no meaning whatsoever for Russia to join NATO, as NATO was designed, in first place, to oppose USSR.
I would say that, in the next future, Russia may do bloc with Central Asia, and strengten their relationship with China, which is having a 10% economic growth year-by-year

[Darth Rotor]

Mm..
Holds veto power in the Security Council.
I would not expect the Russians back any further US-proposed sanction to Iran from now on..

You are missing the point. Medvedev/Putin will vote for a sanction versus Iran now and again if they thinks it will help them politiclly, and will not vote for sch if they have a more pressing political aim that does not so require support of that program. IIRC, Russia sold some of the equipment to Iran for its nuclear power program, and its enrichment program. There is an incentive to keep that going, but it is not the only factor in Russia's international relations.

Your oversimplification, and your attempt to portray Putin and Medvedev as cartoon characters is not worthy of this discussion. Please raise the bar. The leadership in Russia are not stupid. They wil do what is in their interests, and as things change, they will tend to adapt. They may make a mistake or two, all humans do, but I seriously doubt they are

STUPID

enough to take such a narrow and non utilitarian stand.

DR

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Just have to see why the Iranian would be interested to attack, uh.. Poland?
You are young but you have to start to filter up what the (American) media tell you, uh?

Uh, no. The path of Iranian missiles attacking America would travel right through the range of the Poland missile sites.

[Matteo Martini]

Uh, no. The path of Iranian missiles attacking America would travel right through the range of the Poland missile sites.

Iran has no missile which can reach America

[Darth Rotor]

Uh, no. The path of Iranian missiles attacking America would travel right through the range of the Poland missile sites.
Uh, no.

Don't think so. If you think so, can you show me, sketch me, a global projection of the paths the ICBM's Iran doesn't have will follow to get to America?

Also, if you can show me such a circle route (my look at a globe tells me you didn't quite think this through) any ICBM's headed for America CANNOT BE SHOT DOWN BY A BMD system in Poland. The BMD is an end game defensive system. That is when the missiles are

COMING DOWN.

Go look at the globe, and remember, the ICBM's would be up, or arching waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up there from Iran to America by the time they got to any potential point over Poland.

What the hell do I know? I only spent time on BMD as part of my job a few years back. :p

DR

[Matteo Martini]

You are missing the point. Medvedev/Putin will vote for a sanction versus Iran now and again if they thinks it will help them politiclly, and will not vote for sch if they have a more pressing political aim that does not so require support of that program.
[..]

Oh, Dr. Darth Rotor of the Pentagon`s Strategic Military Office(TM).
You think you are SO clever for filling your mouth with those bubble babbling non-sensical posts:

NATO has, and continues to work on at a glacial pace, an integrated IADS, which was once called ACCS. If NATO dissolved, EU inherits considerable C2 backbone, and with themselves as the third pole, or fourth if you include China, cannot play the MAD game. They must have some defense versus Ballistic Missiles, and planes, of varying capability. This move is in fact rational if you think in China time, or strategically (beyond ten years) to a day when EU is in fact a power bloc.


Get down the pedestal, DR..

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, Dr. Darth Rotor of the Pentagon`s Strategic Military Office(TM).
You think you are SO clever for filling your mouth with those bubble babbling non-sensical posts:



Get down the pedestal, DR..
This is the JREF. The E stands for Educate. Matteo, you demonstrate by your posts that you need educating on this topic. I am trying to help that. I apologize if my tone isn't soft enough for you.

And no, I don't work for the Pentagon.

DR

[Dymanic]

No, not in Poland.
Of course not. As I said, it's a slippery slope. They object to the whole idea of missile defense, and always have.

Poland has a nominal ability to deflect a few ballistic missiles, conventional or nuclear, but since they are not a nuclear power, and we don't want them to be, Russia doesn't want them to be, your MAD appeal is mad.

Russia doesn't want anybody to be able to swat their missiles out of the sky. As we've already noted, Poland isn't going to have a significant capability to do that any time soon. For that matter, WE aren't either (overlooking the obvious fact that the installation in Poland will actually be ours anyway). I object to the idea of a missile defense system for two reasons, the first being that it's destabilizing, and the second being that it won't work. When Ronald Ray-Gun first introduced the idea, he had the tech guys laughing so hard they could barely hold their hands out to take the money. The Russians weren't impressed then by his pathetically naive offer to cut them in on the deal, and they aren't buying that garbage now.

This business is all about guessing what the other guy is thinking you're thinking he's thinking. In order to be a real missile defense system, a missile defense system has to actually work. In order to be destabilizing, it doesn't have to do that. All that's required is for the other guy to think YOU think it will work.

MAD only worked in a bipolar world (in both senses) which IS NOT THE WORLD WE LIVE IN, nor will we for the next generation.I might have agreed a week ago, but that was before Russia was threatening to nuke a country we've sworn to protect. But what I think isn't so important. What's important is that the Russians don't seem to have gotten the word about this new world we live in.

[Matteo Martini]

This is the JREF. The E stands for Educate. Matteo, you demonstrate by your posts that you need educating on this topic. I am trying to help that. I apologize if my tone isn't soft enough for you.


The point is that, before educating somebody else, you should educate your self..


And no, I don't work for the Pentagon.


That is clear enough reading your posts.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Iran has no missile which can reach America

Yes, and I am sure they aren't trying to develop that capability :rolleyes: .

Uh, no.

Don't think so. If you think so, can you show me, sketch me, a global projection of the paths the ICBM's Iran doesn't have will follow to get to America?

Also, if you can show me such a circle route (my look at a globe tells me you didn't quite think this through) any ICBM's headed for America CANNOT BE SHOT DOWN BY A BMD system in Poland. The BMD is an end game defensive system. That is when the missiles are

COMING DOWN.

Go look at the globe, and remember, the ICBM's would be up, or arching waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay up there from Iran to America by the time they got to any potential point over Poland.

What the hell do I know? I only spent time on BMD as part of my job a few years back. :p

DR

Of course I can't, the guy on CNN can :p .

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, and I am sure they aren't trying to develop that capability :rolleyes: .


Now I understand why Iranians (along with Chinese, Russians, South Americans,..) are so angry with Americans..

[dudalb]

I see that appeasement is alive and well.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I see that appeasement is alive and well.

He's energizing and legitimizing... and energizing the enemy!

[GreyICE]

Yes, and I am sure they aren't trying to develop that capability :rolleyes: .



Of course I can't, the guy on CNN can :p .

I am disturbingly reminded of Colin Powell's presentation to the UN.

Official government presentations are full of lots of lies. Yes, this includes the United States of 'Do No Wrong'

If you have every bit of logic and every bit of common sense and every bit of information telling you an end point system for missile defense in Poland is utterly worthless for deflecting missiles from Iran to America (huh?) and logic and common sense tells you its saber rattling at Russia as well as a way to stop any potential missiles launched at Europe, well... don't listen to the government. Governments lie. It's what they do.

[gumboot]

I cannot see how Russia would be interested in joining either NATO or a new European security initiative. That would require them to treat the former USSR satellite states as equals, something they're clearly not inclined to do.

[Matteo Martini]

I cannot see how Russia would be interested in joining either NATO or a new European security initiative. That would require them to treat the former USSR satellite states as equals, something they're clearly not inclined to do.

..while Italy, a member of the NATO since long time ago, is treated at the same level as the US inside the organization..

[a_unique_person]

i find it insane for the usa to NOT see this as a threat to Russia. if they built a similar base in Cuba or Mexico, we would probably react the same way.

if we want to shoot down missiles from the middle east or asia...we should put missile batteries in Italy, Greece, or Japan.

this is indeed a threat to Russia, or atleast a critical adjustment to the balance of power against them. they are right to be pissed.

It is doubly dumb. It provokes, and it doesn't work. A lose/lose situation. These are apparently much loved by the current administration.

[Darth Rotor]

The point is that, before educating somebody else, you should educate your self.
I have, thanks. I also think, and rely on what I have learned IRL when I worked on matters relating to these topics. Do you have a similar well of expertise?
That is clear enough reading your posts.
Then why did you make that remark?

DR

[Darth Rotor]

If you have every bit of logic and every bit of common sense and every bit of information telling you an end point system for missile defense in Poland is utterly worthless for deflecting missiles from Iran to America (huh?) and logic and common sense tells you its saber rattling at Russia as well as a way to stop any potential missiles launched at Europe, well... don't listen to the government. Governments lie. It's what they do.
I am still puzzled at where the strawman developed that Polish BMD systems would defend AMerica proper. They can't. They can defend America's allies, somewhat, and they can act as defense against aircraft as well, but who began this whole story of the Poland based missiles defending America?

Did I miss a memo? (For anyone in the thread who can answer, I hope the answer is not something on Youtube.

DR