U.S. antimissiles in Europe: a safer world or a new arms race?


nowar 18 October, 2007, 20:03	Why not, has everybody forgotten the Cuban Missile crisis! However, two wrongs does not a right make! Russia probably has to find ways and means, including local population displeasure, influencing Democratic leaders like Obama,stopping terrorist information sharing and probably the threats of nuclear proliferation MAY WORK. However USA in this window of oppurtunity, make just TRY to make a permanent attempt at crossing the Rubicon, as they say! permalink quote +2 nowar
Robert 19 October, 2007, 01:46	As worded, is it correct to consider steps, I would have to say of course. Why wouldn't they consider matters carefully. My feeling on matters, is that most likely it really doesn't matter the original intentions of the missile shield, it will be used as future administrations and EU governments see fit. They will certainly use it against terrorist attacks. Whether it is a threat to Russia.remains to be seen, it's only a potential threat today, not an actual threat. Still, careful governments plan against threats both real and potential. permalink quote 0 Robert
despecto 19 October, 2007, 02:30	From my perspective US is getting increasingly impudent. Expending NATO to the very borders of Russia and this AMS against some mysterious threats form Iran or North Korea. It is one way game, Russia should and will response sooner or later. But to avoid any kind of conflict US government have to comprehend, that Russia my be weakened after fall of USSR but recovering fast and capable of defending it's interests. [part of this message was deleted by RT]. permalink quote -1 despecto
sam 19 October, 2007, 05:00	The Polish President has already clearly stated that it is directed against Russia.Guess he was silly as to leak out a secret everyone already knows. Granted at the moment those systems cannt stop Russian ICBMS but there will be room for upgrades as the technology becomes avalible.The geographic positioning of the AMS are odd if you are trying to stop missiles from iran or north korea.The same missiles these countries do not have. As for the radar system,well it would be looking right into russian airspace.I do not see why russia should accept that.No country will.Its fair game for Russia to take steps to neutralze those sites in event It needs to.If i was the one, I would put missiles and jammers in Kaliningrad and also point some ICBMs at these "enermy" sites. permalink quote -1 sam
Al 19 October, 2007, 05:03	Certainly. Russia has a right to defend herself from anyone she sees fit. I can see the day when she starts charging a tax to protect the natural resources she has from certain entities that think it best they own them and not Russia. permalink quote 0 Al
MihalMihalich 19 October, 2007, 06:28	Dear Ladies and Gentlemen The Anti-Missile shield is something that US wanted for over 40 years. Only recently they have developed somewhat effective antimissile. That antimissile may destroy missile but not warhead, reason why they put those on their ships. Excuses? Iran doesn't have long-range missiles. N Korea stopped nuclear by themselves, without US help, and their long range missile don't fly and even if they were, it will fly over Pacific Ocean. its far fetched, same would apply to China. WHY? They need their own radar in Europe. And if today they have 9 missiles, why not to have 109 tomorrow? After, start the "freedom negotiations". USA remembers Cuba crisis and know it could have started WW3. they are about to do the exact same thing with Poland. Will history repeat itself? Best Regards permalink quote 0 MihalMihalich
Sevodnya_Net 19 October, 2007, 10:28	I'm obviously missing something here, but to my mind missiles that take out other missiles are a GOOD thing, no matter who they are aimed at or who is aiming them. More broadly, as far as I am concerned some heads need banging together. The world deserves better than this current apology for a cold war. Talks of dirty deals over Iran and the missile shield don't help ease the cynicism. We will at least probaby get a new US administration next year . permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Al 19 October, 2007, 14:09	True Sevod a defensive missile is not an offensive missile but how long does it take to change the warhead and the rest of the system to turn it into an offensive missile? Once the defensive missiles are in place who is to say they will not put offensive ones there also. This is an escalation, a deviance from the path of disarmament. How is that good? I am quite sure it is good for the MIC but not for anyone else. This also defeats the concept of MAD (mutual assured destruction) that made the leaders of the USSR and America think twice before striking with nukes. Why do it?, there would be no winners and the higher ups would be victims also. This gives people like Madeline Allbright and the McCarthyites/warhawks a glimmer of hope for the future. They can actually have a chance of launching a first strike on Russia and kill 100 million people and not suffer for it. That thought is truly scarey. It's a subject that needs to read up on. permalink quote 0 Al
sam 19 October, 2007, 14:29	Yes Sevo you are missing something. What has kept the world at peace is the knowledge at attack by one side will result in total distruction on both sides and thats why the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 was signed. both sides where not allowed to own missiles to stop the other sides ICBMs.If one shoots both die in other words.So noone was shooting until good old Bush went and pulled USA out of the treaty.The result is both sides are making bigger and smarter and deadler ICBMs.Cos of the USA pull out of the treaty, Russia to date has deployed Topol M and Bulava ICBMs (go check them out and see if we want them ) and has tested the RS-24 which now makes the SALT II rubbish as it carries multiple warheads.Why is this?cos Russia needs to be sure that if anyone fires at them will be punished.Thanks Bush world was safer with the treaty in place and noone having AMS systems permalink quote 0 sam
Disadvantaged 19 October, 2007, 15:04	BTW, In case somebody forgets,how about the notion of the saviour turning into the KILLER? Imagine a radar site in Chezia or a missile sight near the heart of WARSAW, become the favoured target of well armed 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS', having all those A/A such as Stringers, Cruise+Missiles and of course those miniature A-Bombs! Imagine a tenth of those fighting in Iran and Afghanisthan, shifting their targets to Poland OR Chezia! Cheers and hello to the new Govt.in Poland! permalink quote 0 Disadvantaged
Sevodnya_Net 19 October, 2007, 16:04	To Al and Sam The world has moved on from the days of MAD - (that is if you ever believed in such a thing. I was never convinced by the argument that nuclear weapons "keep the peace"). The break up of the Soviet Union in particular, and the spread of nuclear programmes outside the so-called super powers has actually led to an even more unstable situation. I don't care for the idea of the US's "missile shield", and I agree that the Polish PM's comments are very embarrassing to the US. Nonetheless we are no longer in a cold war situation, so talk of SALT, START etc is no longer relevant. I did say that heads needed banging together. You can't just blame America - although you are right to. Russia has also pulled out of treaties. I also said that the world deserved better, and part of that expectation is that the US and Russia should be combining to counter new nuclear threats, not having old-style pots at each other. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Tim 19 October, 2007, 16:35	Yes, ABMs eventually lead to the possibilty that a nation can enter into a nuclear war and win with acceptable losses. The concept of MAD requires that Russia "keep up with the Jones" and feed an arms race. permalink quote 0 Tim
charles 19 October, 2007, 18:22	i've always been a great admirer of Russia since i started following politics and reading world history in the early '90s. i found out long time ago that the US has always dreamed of prevailing over the whole universe and their only stumbling block has always been Russia. if they can sort out Russia, they will be the absolute rulers of this world - bullying everyone. i'd like to ask President Putin to take the US behaviour seriously and remember the U-2 spy plane on 1 May 1960. i hope Mr. Putin realizes that this is the resumption of the cold war. maybe Mr. Putin must station the same anti-missile shield to Venezuela, Cuba, and all other Russian-aligned American countries. that will be good for the balance of power. the US is already stripping Africa of its mineral resources (Nigeria&Angola). one thing must be understood - the real policymakers in the US are the business leaders who are always interested in expanding their bussiness empires particularly. these days they obsessed with oil. therefore US President is just a representative of the businessmen. they are now eying the Middle East and former Soviet countries, but they see Russia as a stumbling block in the UN security council when it comes to vetos. that's why they've decided to deal with Russia once and for all. the US has, without saying, declared war on Russia. please send this message to Mr. Putin. permalink quote 0 charles
Sevodnya_Net 19 October, 2007, 20:30	I repeat: the world situation that persisted in 1972 no longer applies. Back then we had two super powers facing each other with dangerous weapons, each convinced that the other was hell bent on nuking the other if it got half a chance. Not being a fan of Bush or Putin, nonetheless neither of these, nor their successors are likely to bomb the other. More likely is that some more unstable regime or terorist will try to launch an attack. In that situation the idea of a defence shield makes more sense. permalink quote 0 Sevodnya_Net
Daniel 20 October, 2007, 00:39	It is well known that the ambitions of Mr. Putin will start a III world war and the scriptures said that Europe will erase Russia from the map. to bad. permalink quote 0 Daniel
sam 20 October, 2007, 05:52	HaHaHa Daniel where do you come from?Bible belt or Saudi Arabia?.If you are christian then tell me what scriptures are you refering to? Where in the bible is europe or Russia mentioned? Do you speak directly to God too? My lord do you think there is a difference between the people who read the Quran and kill people and these that Read the bible to reflect their own political believes?Nope same thing.If you want to use religion then here goes.Even the Present Pope see that the only true churches are catholic and orthodox.And that would mean The whole bible belt and pentacostals are not christians.My Lord save us from fanatics of all religions. permalink quote 0 sam
sam 20 October, 2007, 06:26	Sevo nothing has changed. The mistrust is the same as before. The sheild in europe is against whom? AMS can only be effective against ICBMs as the leave and not when the warheads are reentering.So can not hit fictious Iranian missile as it is fired and cannt stop it coming down.But can try to catch Russian ones as they leave.Why not use the instulation russians are offering as it is near Iran already?They can even ask Russia to protect Europe since their AMS (S400 and now S500) are better.This are all alteratives offered by russia to the american ones.But US are not buying are they? If the ICBMs are not agaist each other then why does USA have 10,000 warheads and Russia has 16,000 of then? After all next in line UK has 750 only.As for Iran none and north Korea has only tested and does not have a working missile.Face the truth it is all down to world domination.Anyone who can block the incoming missiles and still have theirs hit the target can tell the other what to do.So here we go a new arms race.Was it not Madeleine Albright who said that Siberia is too vast and rich with natural resources to be owned by one country.So how do you think the Russians see that statement.Clearly someone wants more then Alaska they got. permalink quote 0 sam
Corneliu 20 October, 2007, 07:02	I lived for 40 y in eastern Europe and for me the matter is absolutly clear; if the Soviet Union would have retreated too soon from the eastern European countries which it liberated, it would have been finished by the former 'Friends'. I did and do not apreciate the social system which existed there but considering that the SU was permanently under siege I am admitting some circumstances. Now as the social system has changed one would think that Russia would diserve a more sympathetic atitude on behalf of the 'Western World'. Contrary to my expectations the process of anihilation continues! My only conclusion is that actually the real aim was and remains not to allow the existence of a powerfull RUSSIA and so that it's resources can be easyly taken. RUSSIA meeds to defend itself with any means. permalink quote 0 Corneliu
charles 20 October, 2007, 14:02	we Africans are glad that the Russians are claiming back its superpower status 'cause we're sick and tired of Bush and his business executives. they have exploited Africa for too long since they have given themselves the status of being the only superpower. we really need the Russian might to counter the Americans. we are also looking forward to claiming back our mineral wealth with the help of the Russians. the Russians have never had ambitions to invade other continents. it's always the Americans. it's time cut them down to size. permalink quote 0 charles
oleg 22 October, 2007, 01:05	I hope the U.S. stands its ground on this issue.America,should not back away from its plans due to an arrogant dictator named Putin!! Russia's next prime-minister,what a joke.LOL. permalink quote +1 oleg

nowar 18 October, 2007, 20:03

Why not, has everybody forgotten the Cuban Missile crisis! However, two wrongs does not a right make! Russia probably has to find ways and means, including local population displeasure, influencing Democratic leaders like Obama,stopping terrorist information sharing and probably the threats of nuclear proliferation MAY WORK. However USA in this window of oppurtunity, make just TRY to make a permanent attempt at crossing the Rubicon, as they say!

permalink quote nowar

Robert 19 October, 2007, 01:46

As worded, is it correct to consider steps, I would have to say of course. Why wouldn't they consider matters carefully. My feeling on matters, is that most likely it really doesn't matter the original intentions of the missile shield, it will be used as future administrations and EU governments see fit. They will certainly use it against terrorist attacks. Whether it is a threat to Russia.remains to be seen, it's only a potential threat today, not an actual threat. Still, careful governments plan against threats both real and potential.

permalink quote Robert

despecto 19 October, 2007, 02:30

From my perspective US is getting increasingly impudent. Expending NATO to the very borders of Russia and this AMS against some mysterious threats form Iran or North Korea. It is one way game, Russia should and will response sooner or later. But to avoid any kind of conflict US government have to comprehend, that Russia my be weakened after fall of USSR but recovering fast and capable of defending it's interests. [part of this message was deleted by RT].

permalink quote despecto

sam 19 October, 2007, 05:00

The Polish President has already clearly stated that it is directed against Russia.Guess he was silly as to leak out a secret everyone already knows. Granted at the moment those systems cannt stop Russian ICBMS but there will be room for upgrades as the technology becomes avalible.The geographic positioning of the AMS are odd if you are trying to stop missiles from iran or north korea.The same missiles these countries do not have. As for the radar system,well it would be looking right into russian airspace.I do not see why russia should accept that.No country will.Its fair game for Russia to take steps to neutralze those sites in event It needs to.If i was the one, I would put missiles and jammers in Kaliningrad and also point some ICBMs at these "enermy" sites.

permalink quote sam

Al 19 October, 2007, 05:03

Certainly. Russia has a right to defend herself from anyone she sees fit. I can see the day when she starts charging a tax to protect the natural resources she has from certain entities that think it best they own them and not Russia.

permalink quote Al

MihalMihalich 19 October, 2007, 06:28

Dear Ladies and Gentlemen The Anti-Missile shield is something that US wanted for over 40 years. Only recently they have developed somewhat effective antimissile. That antimissile may destroy missile but not warhead, reason why they put those on their ships. Excuses? Iran doesn't have long-range missiles. N Korea stopped nuclear by themselves, without US help, and their long range missile don't fly and even if they were, it will fly over Pacific Ocean. its far fetched, same would apply to China. WHY? They need their own radar in Europe. And if today they have 9 missiles, why not to have 109 tomorrow? After, start the "freedom negotiations". USA remembers Cuba crisis and know it could have started WW3. they are about to do the exact same thing with Poland. Will history repeat itself? Best Regards

permalink quote MihalMihalich

Sevodnya_Net 19 October, 2007, 10:28

I'm obviously missing something here, but to my mind missiles that take out other missiles are a GOOD thing, no matter who they are aimed at or who is aiming them. More broadly, as far as I am concerned some heads need banging together. The world deserves better than this current apology for a cold war. Talks of dirty deals over Iran and the missile shield don't help ease the cynicism. We will at least probaby get a new US administration next year .

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Al 19 October, 2007, 14:09

True Sevod a defensive missile is not an offensive missile but how long does it take to change the warhead and the rest of the system to turn it into an offensive missile? Once the defensive missiles are in place who is to say they will not put offensive ones there also. This is an escalation, a deviance from the path of disarmament. How is that good? I am quite sure it is good for the MIC but not for anyone else. This also defeats the concept of MAD (mutual assured destruction) that made the leaders of the USSR and America think twice before striking with nukes. Why do it?, there would be no winners and the higher ups would be victims also. This gives people like Madeline Allbright and the McCarthyites/warhawks a glimmer of hope for the future. They can actually have a chance of launching a first strike on Russia and kill 100 million people and not suffer for it. That thought is truly scarey. It's a subject that needs to read up on.

permalink quote Al

sam 19 October, 2007, 14:29

Yes Sevo you are missing something. What has kept the world at peace is the knowledge at attack by one side will result in total distruction on both sides and thats why the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 was signed. both sides where not allowed to own missiles to stop the other sides ICBMs.If one shoots both die in other words.So noone was shooting until good old Bush went and pulled USA out of the treaty.The result is both sides are making bigger and smarter and deadler ICBMs.Cos of the USA pull out of the treaty, Russia to date has deployed Topol M and Bulava ICBMs (go check them out and see if we want them ) and has tested the RS-24 which now makes the SALT II rubbish as it carries multiple warheads.Why is this?cos Russia needs to be sure that if anyone fires at them will be punished.Thanks Bush world was safer with the treaty in place and noone having AMS systems

permalink quote sam

Disadvantaged 19 October, 2007, 15:04

BTW, In case somebody forgets,how about the notion of the saviour turning into the KILLER? Imagine a radar site in Chezia or a missile sight near the heart of WARSAW, become the favoured target of well armed 'FREEDOM FIGHTERS', having all those A/A such as Stringers, Cruise+Missiles and of course those miniature A-Bombs! Imagine a tenth of those fighting in Iran and Afghanisthan, shifting their targets to Poland OR Chezia! Cheers and hello to the new Govt.in Poland!

permalink quote Disadvantaged

Sevodnya_Net 19 October, 2007, 16:04

To Al and Sam The world has moved on from the days of MAD - (that is if you ever believed in such a thing. I was never convinced by the argument that nuclear weapons "keep the peace"). The break up of the Soviet Union in particular, and the spread of nuclear programmes outside the so-called super powers has actually led to an even more unstable situation. I don't care for the idea of the US's "missile shield", and I agree that the Polish PM's comments are very embarrassing to the US. Nonetheless we are no longer in a cold war situation, so talk of SALT, START etc is no longer relevant. I did say that heads needed banging together. You can't just blame America - although you are right to. Russia has also pulled out of treaties. I also said that the world deserved better, and part of that expectation is that the US and Russia should be combining to counter new nuclear threats, not having old-style pots at each other.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Tim 19 October, 2007, 16:35

Yes, ABMs eventually lead to the possibilty that a nation can enter into a nuclear war and win with acceptable losses. The concept of MAD requires that Russia "keep up with the Jones" and feed an arms race.

permalink quote Tim

charles 19 October, 2007, 18:22

i've always been a great admirer of Russia since i started following politics and reading world history in the early '90s. i found out long time ago that the US has always dreamed of prevailing over the whole universe and their only stumbling block has always been Russia. if they can sort out Russia, they will be the absolute rulers of this world - bullying everyone. i'd like to ask President Putin to take the US behaviour seriously and remember the U-2 spy plane on 1 May 1960. i hope Mr. Putin realizes that this is the resumption of the cold war. maybe Mr. Putin must station the same anti-missile shield to Venezuela, Cuba, and all other Russian-aligned American countries. that will be good for the balance of power. the US is already stripping Africa of its mineral resources (Nigeria&Angola). one thing must be understood - the real policymakers in the US are the business leaders who are always interested in expanding their bussiness empires particularly. these days they obsessed with oil. therefore US President is just a representative of the businessmen. they are now eying the Middle East and former Soviet countries, but they see Russia as a stumbling block in the UN security council when it comes to vetos. that's why they've decided to deal with Russia once and for all. the US has, without saying, declared war on Russia. please send this message to Mr. Putin.

permalink quote charles

Sevodnya_Net 19 October, 2007, 20:30

I repeat: the world situation that persisted in 1972 no longer applies. Back then we had two super powers facing each other with dangerous weapons, each convinced that the other was hell bent on nuking the other if it got half a chance. Not being a fan of Bush or Putin, nonetheless neither of these, nor their successors are likely to bomb the other. More likely is that some more unstable regime or terorist will try to launch an attack. In that situation the idea of a defence shield makes more sense.

permalink quote Sevodnya_Net

Daniel 20 October, 2007, 00:39

It is well known that the ambitions of Mr. Putin will start a III world war and the scriptures said that Europe will erase Russia from the map. to bad.

permalink quote Daniel

sam 20 October, 2007, 05:52

HaHaHa Daniel where do you come from?Bible belt or Saudi Arabia?.If you are christian then tell me what scriptures are you refering to? Where in the bible is europe or Russia mentioned? Do you speak directly to God too? My lord do you think there is a difference between the people who read the Quran and kill people and these that Read the bible to reflect their own political believes?Nope same thing.If you want to use religion then here goes.Even the Present Pope see that the only true churches are catholic and orthodox.And that would mean The whole bible belt and pentacostals are not christians.My Lord save us from fanatics of all religions.

permalink quote sam

sam 20 October, 2007, 06:26

Sevo nothing has changed. The mistrust is the same as before. The sheild in europe is against whom? AMS can only be effective against ICBMs as the leave and not when the warheads are reentering.So can not hit fictious Iranian missile as it is fired and cannt stop it coming down.But can try to catch Russian ones as they leave.Why not use the instulation russians are offering as it is near Iran already?They can even ask Russia to protect Europe since their AMS (S400 and now S500) are better.This are all alteratives offered by russia to the american ones.But US are not buying are they? If the ICBMs are not agaist each other then why does USA have 10,000 warheads and Russia has 16,000 of then? After all next in line UK has 750 only.As for Iran none and north Korea has only tested and does not have a working missile.Face the truth it is all down to world domination.Anyone who can block the incoming missiles and still have theirs hit the target can tell the other what to do.So here we go a new arms race.Was it not Madeleine Albright who said that Siberia is too vast and rich with natural resources to be owned by one country.So how do you think the Russians see that statement.Clearly someone wants more then Alaska they got.

permalink quote sam

Corneliu 20 October, 2007, 07:02

I lived for 40 y in eastern Europe and for me the matter is absolutly clear; if the Soviet Union would have retreated too soon from the eastern European countries which it liberated, it would have been finished by the former 'Friends'. I did and do not apreciate the social system which existed there but considering that the SU was permanently under siege I am admitting some circumstances. Now as the social system has changed one would think that Russia would diserve a more sympathetic atitude on behalf of the 'Western World'. Contrary to my expectations the process of anihilation continues! My only conclusion is that actually the real aim was and remains not to allow the existence of a powerfull RUSSIA and so that it's resources can be easyly taken. RUSSIA meeds to defend itself with any means.

permalink quote Corneliu

charles 20 October, 2007, 14:02

we Africans are glad that the Russians are claiming back its superpower status 'cause we're sick and tired of Bush and his business executives. they have exploited Africa for too long since they have given themselves the status of being the only superpower. we really need the Russian might to counter the Americans. we are also looking forward to claiming back our mineral wealth with the help of the Russians. the Russians have never had ambitions to invade other continents. it's always the Americans. it's time cut them down to size.

permalink quote charles

oleg 22 October, 2007, 01:05

I hope the U.S. stands its ground on this issue.America,should not back away from its plans due to an arrogant dictator named Putin!! Russia's next prime-minister,what a joke.LOL.

permalink quote oleg

Name*
Country, City
Valid e-mail*
Text*
Enter digits below*

	*Required fields