Russian Nuclear Threat to Poland?

[Inferno]

So we just let Russia invade any country they want????

Are we going to start another war to stop them. They didn't interfer when we invaded a country. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[Bootneck]

If it's not a threat then why are the Russians reacting like it is one?

The Russians would react to the Polish prime minister breaking wind if they thought it would suit their purpose. Don't you remember what they were like throughout the cold war?

They are reverting to their old ways. What else would you expect with a KGB man running the show.

 

[CrpRavens30]

Im told Obama would be able to fix everything.

 

[dilloduck]

Im told Obama would be able to fix everything.

If he can't he has a handy person to blame it on.

 

[Avatar4321]

Are we going to start another war to stop them. They didn't interfer when we invaded a country. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander.

yeah giving them with weapons didnt interefer with us at all...

 

[editec]

Once again you dumb shit a DEFENSIVE shield is NO threat. It does not increase the Polish military, it does not give them new and better OFFENSIVE weapons, it does not do anything except PROTECT the country from a sudden nuclear attack.

This is like the County claiming the city is threatening it by buying more police cars.

Are you familiar with game theory?

The game theory concept of mutually assured destruction?

You do realize that the Soviets are still a nuclear power, don't you?

So, if we destabilize that delicate balance of mutually assured destruction with a defence shield, what do we find?

We find the Russians are left with two choices:

1. Either they build up their nuclear attack abilities to overwhelm our defensive postures, because that is relatively inexpensive thing to do; or

2. They will have to build (and that means invest heavily, very heavily) in creating a similar defensive system.

I know that you, as a former Maine understand that defending territory is a lot harder (and costlier) than attacking it, if the attacker can pick and choose his targets and timing.

so, baiting the bear strikes me as not an especially bright move in this game of American world hegemony that Bush is playing.

It will not prevent Russia from building up AND USING, its conventional forces to intimidate its closer neighbors.

You want to know why I think it won't do that?

Because they Russians know perfectly well that even if they cannot destroy the USA in 30 minutes with nuclear weapons, neither can we destroy them with same without basically destroying the planet in the process.

So that leaves them free to defy us with and the rest of Eurasia with their conventional military.

If we isolate them, they will react badly, because that is how they always react. It is an Empire, after all.

Russia is paranoid about being isolated, and when it it has the chance it creates misery for everyone within arms reach.

The nuclear shields won't prevent that, I think. And they may very well exascerbate that problem.

NOBODY in Europe is currently fearful of missles from Iran. What a purposefully transparent lie, that is.

If we were, we'd be putting shields in Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan, not in the Czech Republic.

So the Ruskies know this is a provocation directed against them.

If Europe is truly fearful of the bear, (and they have every reason to be so) let them build up their conventional forces, and ally themselves in a truly defensive posture.

The nuclear missle shields are actually an OFFENSIVE move by the USA, regardless of how we attempt to obfucate our intentions with blather about rogue Islamic states.

The only rogue state this move will address is Russia, and I don't think its a good move.

 

[dilloduck]

Are you familiar with game theory?

The game theory concept of mutually assured destruction?

You do realize that the Soviets are still a nuclear power, don't you?

So, if we destabilize that delicate balance of mutually assured destruction with a defence shield, what do we find?

We find the Russians are left with two choices:

1. Either they build up their nuclear attack abilities to overwhelm our defensive postures, because that is relatively inexpensive thing to do; or

2. They will have to build (and that means invest heavily, very heavily) in creating a similar defensive system.

I know that you, as a former Maine understand that defending territory is a lot harder (and costlier) than attacking it, if the attacker can pick and choose his targets and timing.

so, baiting the bear strikes me as not an especially bright move in this game of American world hegemony that Bush is playing.

It will not prevent Russia from building up AND USING, its conventional forces to intimidate its closer neighbors.

You want to know why I think it won't do that?

Because they Russians know perfectly well that even if they cannot destroy the USA in 30 minutes with nuclear weapons, neither can we destroy them with same without basically destroying the planet in the process.

So that leaves them free to defy us with and the rest of Eurasia with their conventional military.

If we isolate them, they will react badly, because that is how they always react. It is an Empire, after all.

Russia is paranoid about being isolated, and when it it has the chance it creates misery for everyone within arms reach.

The nuclear shields won't prevent that, I think. And they may very well exascerbate that problem.

NOBODY in Europe is currently fearful of missles from Iran. What a purposefully transparent lie, that is.

If we were, we'd be putting shields in Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan, not in the Czech Republic.

So the Ruskies know this is a provocation directed against them.

If Europe is truly fearful of the bear, (and they have every reason to be so) let them build up their conventional forces, and ally themselves in a truly defensive posture.

The nuclear missle shields are actually an OFFENSIVE move by the USA, regardless of how we attempt to obfucate our intentions with blather about rogue Islamic states.

The only rogue state this move will address is Russia, and I don't think its a good move.

The US has offered to GIVE Russia the same technology. Why are they refusing it ?

 

[DiveCon]

Are you familiar with game theory?

The game theory concept of mutually assured destruction?

You do realize that the Soviets are still a nuclear power, don't you?

So, if we destabilize that delicate balance of mutually assured destruction with a defence shield, what do we find?

We find the Russians are left with two choices:

1. Either they build up their nuclear attack abilities to overwhelm our defensive postures, because that is relatively inexpensive thing to do; or

2. They will have to build (and that means invest heavily, very heavily) in creating a similar defensive system.

I know that you, as a former Maine understand that defending territory is a lot harder (and costlier) than attacking it, if the attacker can pick and choose his targets and timing.

so, baiting the bear strikes me as not an especially bright move in this game of American world hegemony that Bush is playing.

It will not prevent Russia from building up AND USING, its conventional forces to intimidate its closer neighbors.

You want to know why I think it won't do that?

Because they Russians know perfectly well that even if they cannot destroy the USA in 30 minutes with nuclear weapons, neither can we destroy them with same without basically destroying the planet in the process.

So that leaves them free to defy us with and the rest of Eurasia with their conventional military.

If we isolate them, they will react badly, because that is how they always react. It is an Empire, after all.

Russia is paranoid about being isolated, and when it it has the chance it creates misery for everyone within arms reach.

The nuclear shields won't prevent that, I think. And they may very well exascerbate that problem.

NOBODY in Europe is currently fearful of missles from Iran. What a purposefully transparent lie, that is.

If we were, we'd be putting shields in Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan, not in the Czech Republic.

So the Ruskies know this is a provocation directed against them.

If Europe is truly fearful of the bear, (and they have every reason to be so) let them build up their conventional forces, and ally themselves in a truly defensive posture.

The nuclear missle shields are actually an OFFENSIVE move by the USA, regardless of how we attempt to obfucate our intentions with blather about rogue Islamic states.

The only rogue state this move will address is Russia, and I don't think its a good move.

the Russians have had an ABM system since the 60's

 

[Annie]

the Russians have had an ABM system since the 60's

Cool. You got a link?

 

[Red Dawn]

I guess some people are too young to remember, or they slept through US History Class.

Of course Russia has anti-ballistic missles. That was part of the ABM (anti-ballistic missle) treaty Nixon signed in 1972. Its one of the most famous arms control agreements in history. Each side was allowed to maintain a small force (100 I think) of anti-ballistic missles. The soviets had a small force of ABM missles around Moscow for since the 1960s. We were allowed to have a small force of ABM missles, in accordance with the treaty, but I don't know if we ever deployed it.

Bush unilaterally pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002. Does anyone here read the papers? That was a big deal. Because the ABM treaty limited both sides from developing ABM systems, and Bush wanted his fancy, unworkable star wars program to feed money to defense contractors.

 

[Annie]

I guess some people are too young to remember, or they slept through US History Class.

Of course Russia has anti-ballistic missles. That was part of the ABM (anti-ballistic missle) treaty Nixon signed in 1972. Its one of the most famous arms control agreements in history. Each side was allowed to maintain a small force (100 I think) of anti-ballistic missles. The soviets had a small force of ABM missles around Moscow for since the 1960s. We were allowed to have a small force of ABM missles, in accordance with the treaty, but I don't know if we ever deployed it.

Bush unilaterally pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002. Does anyone here read the papers? That was a big deal. Because the ABM treaty limited both sides from developing ABM systems, and Bush wanted his fancy, unworkable star wars program to feed money to defense contractors.

My apologies. I've not heard of the Russians being able to launch missiles to hit incoming missiles. I remember the US hitting that satellite that was posing a danger 'to somewhere if it crashed into land.' Wow, that the Soviets had this in the 60's, yet appeared so concerned in the 80's when proposed the US invest in the technology that has since proven limitedly successful, makes one wonder.

 

[Avatar4321]

I guess some people are too young to remember, or they slept through US History Class.

Of course Russia has anti-ballistic missles. That was part of the ABM (anti-ballistic missle) treaty Nixon signed in 1972. Its one of the most famous arms control agreements in history. Each side was allowed to maintain a small force (100 I think) of anti-ballistic missles. The soviets had a small force of ABM missles around Moscow for since the 1960s. We were allowed to have a small force of ABM missles, in accordance with the treaty, but I don't know if we ever deployed it.

Bush unilaterally pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002. Does anyone here read the papers? That was a big deal. Because the ABM treaty limited both sides from developing ABM systems, and Bush wanted his fancy, unworkable star wars program to feed money to defense contractors.

The ABM treaty was irrelevant. It was with a nation that didn't exist anymore.

 

[DiveCon]

I guess some people are too young to remember, or they slept through US History Class.

Of course Russia has anti-ballistic missles. That was part of the ABM (anti-ballistic missle) treaty Nixon signed in 1972. Its one of the most famous arms control agreements in history. Each side was allowed to maintain a small force (100 I think) of anti-ballistic missles. The soviets had a small force of ABM missles around Moscow for since the 1960s. We were allowed to have a small force of ABM missles, in accordance with the treaty, but I don't know if we ever deployed it.

Bush unilaterally pulled out of the ABM treaty in 2002. Does anyone here read the papers? That was a big deal. Because the ABM treaty limited both sides from developing ABM systems, and Bush wanted his fancy, unworkable star wars program to feed money to defense contractors.

"unworkable"??????

 

[Annie]

"unworkable"??????

LOL! It's not perfected for certain. Patriots being first generation, but whatever it was that hit that satellite, well that must be third generation.

 

[DiveCon]

LOL! It's not perfected for certain. Patriots being first generation, but whatever it was that hit that satellite, well that must be third generation.

the patriots are in 3rd generation now
and vastly improved over the ones used in the Gulf War


Missile Defense Agency

i believe the system used to shoot down that satelite was the AEGIS

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Are you familiar with game theory?

The game theory concept of mutually assured destruction?

You do realize that the Soviets are still a nuclear power, don't you?

So, if we destabilize that delicate balance of mutually assured destruction with a defence shield, what do we find?

We find the Russians are left with two choices:

1. Either they build up their nuclear attack abilities to overwhelm our defensive postures, because that is relatively inexpensive thing to do; or

2. They will have to build (and that means invest heavily, very heavily) in creating a similar defensive system.

I know that you, as a former Maine understand that defending territory is a lot harder (and costlier) than attacking it, if the attacker can pick and choose his targets and timing.

so, baiting the bear strikes me as not an especially bright move in this game of American world hegemony that Bush is playing.

It will not prevent Russia from building up AND USING, its conventional forces to intimidate its closer neighbors.

You want to know why I think it won't do that?

Because they Russians know perfectly well that even if they cannot destroy the USA in 30 minutes with nuclear weapons, neither can we destroy them with same without basically destroying the planet in the process.

So that leaves them free to defy us with and the rest of Eurasia with their conventional military.

If we isolate them, they will react badly, because that is how they always react. It is an Empire, after all.

Russia is paranoid about being isolated, and when it it has the chance it creates misery for everyone within arms reach.

The nuclear shields won't prevent that, I think. And they may very well exascerbate that problem.

NOBODY in Europe is currently fearful of missles from Iran. What a purposefully transparent lie, that is.

If we were, we'd be putting shields in Isreal, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey and Afghanistan, not in the Czech Republic.

So the Ruskies know this is a provocation directed against them.

If Europe is truly fearful of the bear, (and they have every reason to be so) let them build up their conventional forces, and ally themselves in a truly defensive posture.

The nuclear missle shields are actually an OFFENSIVE move by the USA, regardless of how we attempt to obfucate our intentions with blather about rogue Islamic states.

The only rogue state this move will address is Russia, and I don't think its a good move.

Or they could accept the shield we offered to give them. But defense is not in their interest because they intend to threaten other Nations.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Cool. You got a link?

You do not know that Moscow has been protected since the late 60's? It was written in the treaty each side could have one system. The Soviets built theirs around Moscow we did not build one.

 

[Annie]

You do not know that Moscow has been protected since the late 60's? It was written in the treaty each side could have one system. The Soviets built theirs around Moscow we did not build one.

We are speaking of different things, ABM's v Missile Defense System. It got confused, but cooldiver caught it up.

 

[DiveCon]

You do not know that Moscow has been protected since the late 60's? It was written in the treaty each side could have one system. The Soviets built theirs around Moscow we did not build one.

i thought it was fairly common knowledge since the uproar about Pres Bush opting out of the ABM treaty back in 2002

 

[DiveCon]

We are speaking of different things, ABM's v Missile Defense System. It got confused, but cooldiver caught it up.

ABM's = MDS

they are the same basic thing