Post by: MechAg94 on July 09, 2008, 05:55:38 AM
I was curious what some of your opinions were on this. I have seen other articles talking about Russia putting out some tough talk against our expanding this missile defense system. Personally, I think they are upset that we won't share it with them and they can't build one themselves. I was curious if any of you actually see Russia doing anything drastic or is it just more talk?
Quote
Russia threatened to retaliate by military means after a deal with the Czech Republic brought the US missile defence system in Europe a step closer.
The threat followed quickly on from the announcement that Condoleezza Rice signed a formal agreement with the Czech Republic to host the radar for the controversial project.
Moscow argues that the missile shield would severely undermine the balance of European security and regards the proposed missile shield based in two former Communist countries as a hostile move.
We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Related Links
The ministry did not detail what its response might entail.
Dr Rice, the US Secretary of State, hailed the agreement as a step forward for international security.
After 14 months of negotiations, the US is struggling to clinch agreement with its other proposed partner - Poland - where it hopes to locate the interceptor missiles designed to shoot down any incoming rockets.
Washington insists that the system will not be targeted at Russia, but will act as a safeguard for Europe against regimes such as Iran. The plan was endorsed by Nato in April.
"This missile defence agreement is significant as a building block not just for the security of the United States and the Czech Republic, but also for the security of Nato and the security of the international community as a whole," Dr Rice said. "Ballistic missile proliferation is not an imaginary threat."
A change of government in Poland last November saw the country introduce a range of demands including US investment in its air defences in return for siting the missiles.
Poland's tough negotiating position has even led to a threat from the Pentagon to find an alternative site in the Baltic state of Lithuania.
"There are remaining issues, but the United States has made a very generous offer [to the Poles]," said Dr Rice.
A year ago at the G8 in Germany, President Vladimir Putin of Russia surprised the US by suggesting that the radar could be hosted in Azerbaijan so that the technology could be shared.
The signing ceremony seemed to bury that idea. Addressing Russian anxiety about the anti-missile system in what used to be its backyard, Ms Rice added: "We want the system to be transparent to the Russians."
Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister, said that the deal was an example of "our joint desire to protect the free world" and said his country could not afford to miss out as it had done after the Second World War, when it fell under Soviet influence.
"We were in the past in a similar situation and then we failed. We did not accept the Marshall Plan...we should not allow a second error of this kind," he said.
In Prague, where polls consistently show a majority of Czechs opposed to hosting the US radar, protestors from Greenpeace unrolled a large banner proclaiming "Do not make a target of us."
After Prague, Dr Rice will visit Bulgaria and Georgia where she will stress US support for Tblisi's application for Nato membership, another annoyance for Russia.
She will also appeal for calm between Moscow and Tblisi over the separatist Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
"We have said both Georgia and Russia need to avoid provocative behaviour but frankly some of the things the Russians did over the last couple of months added to tension in the region," Dr Rice said.
"Georgia is an independent state. It has to be treated like one. I want to make very clear that the US commitment to Georgia's territorial integrity is strong."
The radar agreement still has to pass through the Czech parliament where the government only has a slim majority.
The threat followed quickly on from the announcement that Condoleezza Rice signed a formal agreement with the Czech Republic to host the radar for the controversial project.
Moscow argues that the missile shield would severely undermine the balance of European security and regards the proposed missile shield based in two former Communist countries as a hostile move.
We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Related Links
The ministry did not detail what its response might entail.
Dr Rice, the US Secretary of State, hailed the agreement as a step forward for international security.
After 14 months of negotiations, the US is struggling to clinch agreement with its other proposed partner - Poland - where it hopes to locate the interceptor missiles designed to shoot down any incoming rockets.
Washington insists that the system will not be targeted at Russia, but will act as a safeguard for Europe against regimes such as Iran. The plan was endorsed by Nato in April.
"This missile defence agreement is significant as a building block not just for the security of the United States and the Czech Republic, but also for the security of Nato and the security of the international community as a whole," Dr Rice said. "Ballistic missile proliferation is not an imaginary threat."
A change of government in Poland last November saw the country introduce a range of demands including US investment in its air defences in return for siting the missiles.
Poland's tough negotiating position has even led to a threat from the Pentagon to find an alternative site in the Baltic state of Lithuania.
"There are remaining issues, but the United States has made a very generous offer [to the Poles]," said Dr Rice.
A year ago at the G8 in Germany, President Vladimir Putin of Russia surprised the US by suggesting that the radar could be hosted in Azerbaijan so that the technology could be shared.
The signing ceremony seemed to bury that idea. Addressing Russian anxiety about the anti-missile system in what used to be its backyard, Ms Rice added: "We want the system to be transparent to the Russians."
Mirek Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister, said that the deal was an example of "our joint desire to protect the free world" and said his country could not afford to miss out as it had done after the Second World War, when it fell under Soviet influence.
"We were in the past in a similar situation and then we failed. We did not accept the Marshall Plan...we should not allow a second error of this kind," he said.
In Prague, where polls consistently show a majority of Czechs opposed to hosting the US radar, protestors from Greenpeace unrolled a large banner proclaiming "Do not make a target of us."
After Prague, Dr Rice will visit Bulgaria and Georgia where she will stress US support for Tblisi's application for Nato membership, another annoyance for Russia.
She will also appeal for calm between Moscow and Tblisi over the separatist Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
"We have said both Georgia and Russia need to avoid provocative behaviour but frankly some of the things the Russians did over the last couple of months added to tension in the region," Dr Rice said.
"Georgia is an independent state. It has to be treated like one. I want to make very clear that the US commitment to Georgia's territorial integrity is strong."
The radar agreement still has to pass through the Czech parliament where the government only has a slim majority.
Post by: Manedwolf on July 09, 2008, 06:00:52 AM
Russia's military is not in much shape to do anything significant, AFAIK.
Post by: Balog on July 09, 2008, 06:18:15 AM
Post by: AJ Dual on July 09, 2008, 06:23:27 AM
- Former/diminished superpower angst.
- How it plays against internal politics (bread and circuses/external crisis & distraction)
- Cultural attitudes we don't completely understand about the nations/peoples Russia has considered it's "backyard" for centuries.
Post by: Tallpine on July 09, 2008, 06:24:11 AM
Quote
We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
Fine, have at it. Assuming of course that you can find a spy to steal the technology from the USA.
Post by: lupinus on July 09, 2008, 09:51:50 AM
Post by: charby on July 09, 2008, 10:09:25 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95
speaking of Russians, this kind of cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbuIZ-5-8o
Post by: RocketMan on July 09, 2008, 02:53:18 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 09, 2008, 03:15:40 PM
We have actually offered to let them in on the deal more than once, with varying levels of participation. The Russians have consistently refused.
Why on earth would the Russians want in on a deal that makes their nuclear arsenal useless as a retaliatory measure?
Post by: lupinus on July 09, 2008, 03:21:27 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 09, 2008, 03:40:58 PM
Post by: De Selby on July 09, 2008, 03:41:46 PM
because it would, likewise, make ours equally useless.
Somehow I highly doubt that this is what the shield actually does.
Post by: Marvin Dao on July 09, 2008, 04:16:23 PM
We have actually offered to let them in on the deal more than once, with varying levels of participation. The Russians have consistently refused.
Why on earth would the Russians want in on a deal that makes their nuclear arsenal useless as a retaliatory measure?
Because it doesn't do that at all. Any ballistic missile defense that's on the table is worthless against Russia's arsenal. Unless our BMD expenditures take a massive leap, there's nowhere near enough interceptors to stop Russia from a retaliatory attack. Even if we did destroy most of their silos on a first strike and had the interceptors to cover the rest, the most optimistic interception percentages would still let Russia destroy pretty much every major city in America in a retaliatory attack.
Post by: De Selby on July 09, 2008, 04:25:58 PM
We have actually offered to let them in on the deal more than once, with varying levels of participation. The Russians have consistently refused.
Why on earth would the Russians want in on a deal that makes their nuclear arsenal useless as a retaliatory measure?
Because it doesn't do that at all. Any ballistic missile defense that's on the table is worthless against Russia's arsenal. Unless our BMD expenditures take a massive leap, there's nowhere near enough interceptors to stop Russia from a retaliatory attack. Even if we did destroy most of their silos on a first strike and had the interceptors to cover the rest, the most optimistic interception percentages would still let Russia destroy pretty much every major city in America in a retaliatory attack.
So what's the purpose of the shield???
Post by: Perd Hapley on July 09, 2008, 04:34:52 PM
Post by: Scout26 on July 09, 2008, 04:55:21 PM
Folks with smaller arsenals?
BINGO. It can stop say 20 or less (probably much LESS) incoming missles. Altough I would wonder how many Russian missle would actually make it out of the silos.......
Post by: De Selby on July 09, 2008, 05:38:49 PM
Folks with smaller arsenals?
If that's the case what's the purpose of locating all this machinery in Eastern Europe? Who are those folks with smaller arsenals there?
Sorry, but this just does not make any sense. I think the Russians are annoyed for a good reason.
Post by: Marvin Dao on July 09, 2008, 06:21:55 PM
Folks with smaller arsenals?
If that's the case what's the purpose of locating all this machinery in Eastern Europe? Who are those folks with smaller arsenals there?
Sorry, but this just does not make any sense. I think the Russians are annoyed for a good reason.
Iran and Pakistan. Both have ballistic missiles and potentially unstable governments. Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and has the technical knowledge to miniaturize them enough to fit onto their ballistic missiles. Iran may potentially gain nuclear weapons. For various technical reasons (mainly distance), the Alaska site has reasonably good coverage over China, Russia, and North Korea, but poor coverage over the Middle East. Poland is arguably out strongest ally in the region, so they get the station.
As ballistic missiles traveling from Russia to America would primarily take the over the North Pole route that the Alaska station covers, the station in Poland does not gain us much against Russia.
Post by: De Selby on July 09, 2008, 07:17:37 PM
If they knew the facts, they'd actually invite this network, because it only helps them?
Post by: Marvin Dao on July 09, 2008, 07:58:51 PM
So basically the Russians are only uspet because they have no idea what's going on?
If they knew the facts, they'd actually invite this network, because it only helps them?
If they knew the facts, they'd actually invite this network, because it only helps them?
It doesn't help them or hurt them. They're just bitching because they can. This is much like the NATO expansion into former Soviet Bloc countries that happened in the late '90s. They bitched, they moaned, they said it endangered Russia/Western relations, they threatened to slow their nuclear force draw down, etc. In the end, it amounted to nothing.
Post by: ilbob on July 10, 2008, 04:20:01 AM
Post by: 41magsnub on July 10, 2008, 01:03:08 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on July 10, 2008, 01:07:44 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on July 10, 2008, 01:57:17 PM
Defending against missiles launched in the Middle East against Western Europe requires interceptors based in Eastern Europe. That's why we're working with Poland and Czech Republic. That chunk of SW Russia, just north of Georgia, would be ideal for defending against missiles from China or North Korea targeting Europe. That's why we're trying to negotiate with Russia.
If Russia were to attack the US with ballistic missiles, their trajectories would mostly be over the north pole. Interceptors in Eastern Europe or SW Russia would be absolutely useless, we'd need interceptors in Canada and Alaska (though I think we placing some interceptors in Alaska).
Russia's objections to the missile shield in Eastern Europe aren't strategic, they're political. Russia simply doesn't like the fact we have the tech. They don't like the fact that Europe is relying upon the US for their protection. Obviously that increases our geopolitical importance and lessens theirs.
Post by: Racehorse on July 10, 2008, 01:58:33 PM
Quote
We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
To me, the technical part of this makes me think of computer hacking. Russia definitely has the resources to pull off some pretty nasty cyber-attacks, especially considering that many attacks already originate there. If they could pull off a large data wipe somewhere important, it could cause huge problems for the U.S.
I don't know how realistic that is, but it made me think.
Post by: RevDisk on July 10, 2008, 03:29:27 PM
Exactly, what are they gonna do? I'd be more worried about Putin using this as an excuse to move toward a rebuilt USSR. That guy is scary.
Worry that he has 80% approval ratings.
Post by: Bigjake on July 10, 2008, 05:11:21 PM
Quote
We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods, the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement.
To me, the technical part of this makes me think of computer hacking. Russia definitely has the resources to pull off some pretty nasty cyber-attacks, especially considering that many attacks already originate there. If they could pull off a large data wipe somewhere important, it could cause huge problems for the U.S.
I don't know how realistic that is, but it made me think.
Racehorse,
If you think those are fun, you oughta see the crap China has been pulling lately. Hacking the Pentagon, selling us laptops and hard drives that "phone home".
The Russkies are just pissed because they've been pretty much relegated into insignificance.