Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

US signs missile defense deal with Poland.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>
Author
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: US signs missile defense deal with Poland.
    Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 01:35
Condoleeza Rice, US Secretary of State signed a deal this morning which will allow the US to build a missile defense base in Poland. This deal has, to no surprise, infuriated Russia, who has now threatened to attack Poland.
 
 
I'm just curious as to what everyones thoughts and opinions are on this.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
  Quote pikeshot1600 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 01:54
For some points of view, see the thread on Georgia/S. Ossetia in this forum.  It has morphed into a discussion of Russian interests and policy. 
 
 
 


Edited by pikeshot1600 - 21-Aug-2008 at 01:55
Back to Top
Penelope View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Alia Atreides

Joined: 26-Aug-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1042
  Quote Penelope Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 03:01
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

For some points of view, see the thread on Georgia/S. Ossetia in this forum.  It has morphed into a discussion of Russian interests and policy. 
 
 
 
 
Good idea.
The direct use of force is such a poor solution to any problem, it is generally employed only by small children and large nations.
Back to Top
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175
  Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 12:03

Russians are so hypocritical stating this is a threat to Russia,when it is just a DEFENCE system!How can a defence system be possibly a threat?The truth is russians simply don't want Poland (or any post-cummunistic) country to be well defended.They want to remain "the strong guy" with the rockets,who can threaten the small eastern-european countries.VikingNow they feel they are loosing this option and stating it is a "threat" to them. Wacko

Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 13:01
True. It's bollocks if the Russians begin a nuclear war to avoid defensive structures... (although, as I've understood the defense means a missile launcher, but still). 
Back to Top
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175
  Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 13:06
Originally posted by rider

True. It's bollocks if the Russians begin a nuclear war to avoid defensive structures... (although, as I've understood the defense means a missile launcher, but still). 
 
A missile launcher,which can only target other missiles,and not stike ground targets.However,the russians being a nuclear power with huge army and many nuclear missiles "think" it is a threat for their country.Confused
 
(rather their interrests in the region i would say) 


Edited by Władysław Warnencz - 21-Aug-2008 at 13:07
Back to Top
rider View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 09-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4664
  Quote rider Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 13:31

Exactly... I'm actually waiting for Sarmat to come in here and start telling how the Russian government is threatened by the unlawful baphoons in Poland who allow foreign missiles on their soil or something similar. 

I'd personally like a missile defense unit into Lithuania, Latvia, Finland, Estonia and Ukraine also. Just to be certain. 

Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 13:39

...Washington's pursuit of nuclear primacy helps explain its missile-defense strategy, for example. Critics of missile defense argue that a national missile shield, such as the prototype the United States has deployed in Alaska and California, would be easily overwhelmed by a cloud of warheads and decoys launched by Russia or China. They are right: even a multilayered system with land-, air-, sea-, and space-based elements, is highly unlikely to protect the United States from a major nuclear attack. But they are wrong to conclude that such a missile-defense system is therefore worthless -- as are the supporters of missile defense who argue that, for similar reasons, such a system could be of concern only to rogue states and terrorists and not to other major nuclear powers.

What both of these camps overlook is that the sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one -- as an adjunct to a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal -- if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would have so few warheads and decoys left.

During the Cold War, Washington relied on its nuclear arsenal not only to deter nuclear strikes by its enemies but also to deter the Warsaw Pact from exploiting its conventional military superiority to attack Western Europe. It was primarily this latter mission that made Washington rule out promises of "no first use" of nuclear weapons. Now that such a mission is obsolete and the United States is beginning to regain nuclear primacy, however, Washington's continued refusal to eschew a first strike and the country's development of a limited missile-defense capability take on a new, and possibly more menacing, look. The most logical conclusions to make are that a nuclear-war-fighting capability remains a key component of the United States' military doctrine and that nuclear primacy remains a goal of the United States...

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204-p30/


'08 missile defenses: harking back to the 1980s?

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080821/116185685.html

US missile shield nothing to celebrate: Polish town's mayor
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_missile_shield_nothing


Edited by Bankotsu - 21-Aug-2008 at 13:45
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 14:04
Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz

Russians are so hypocritical stating this is a threat to Russia,when it is just a DEFENCE system!How can a defence system be possibly a threat?The truth is russians simply don't want Poland (or any post-cummunistic) country to be well defended.They want to remain "the strong guy" with the rockets,who can threaten the small eastern-european countries.VikingNow they feel they are loosing this option and stating it is a "threat" to them. Wacko

 
Imagine for a while that this defence system is effective. In this case equilibrium between nuclear forces of Russia and States is shifted. Russia cannot defend herself from nuclear attack from USA side. Which gives very strong tools for USA and EU in pushing on Russia to give access to her resources. Simple as that. Much less people care about Poland than you would like to think.


Edited by Anton - 21-Aug-2008 at 14:05
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 14:09
Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz

 
A missile launcher,which can only target other missiles,and not stike ground targets.However,the russians being a nuclear power with huge army and many nuclear missiles "think" it is a threat for their country.Confused
 
(rather their interrests in the region i would say) 
 
This missiles are precedent. If americans succeed creating really effective shield they will place it in Poland again.
.
Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 23-Apr-2006
Location: Flipper HQ
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1813
  Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 14:13
I agree with Anton...

Imagine if Russia had installed a "defence system" in Canada. That would weaken US possition. The US side would feel threatened as well...

On another point of view...A defence system is installed...A defence system based on missiles can support other functions as well. In a case of a crisis, such launch pads could fire other "things".

The protection of the EU and US allies from Iran does not convince me at all. It might be in first sight a defence system but...there's definetely a deeper though on the issue by both US and Russia.


Så nu tar jag fram (k)niven va!
Back to Top
Antioxos View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Apr-2006
Location: Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 340
  Quote Antioxos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 15:02
Originally posted by Flipper

I agree with Anton...

Imagine if Russia had installed a "defence system" in Canada. That would weaken US possition. The US side would feel threatened as well...

On another point of view...A defence system is installed...A defence system based on missiles can support other functions as well. In a case of a crisis, such launch pads could fire other "things".

The protection of the EU and US allies from Iran does not convince me at all. It might be in first sight a defence system but...there's definetely a deeper though on the issue by both US and Russia.
Or imagine if Russia would install this system in Cuba.
The game is between Russia and US , the states of Eastern Europe are the tools for this game.US wants to stay the only imperialistic state  and dominate the world but Russia want his share in this domination. The  states of old  Europe are more neutral because are  more experienced from the US policies .

By antioxos at 2007-08-20
Back to Top
Majkes View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Imperial Ambassador

Joined: 06-May-2006
Location: Poland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1144
  Quote Majkes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 21:49
To be honest I see no need for such shield in Poland. It only focused terrorists attention on Poland. As to Iran threat it simply doesn't exist in Poland.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 22:12
Originally posted by Anton

Imagine for a while that this defence system is effective. In this case equilibrium between nuclear forces of Russia and States is shifted. Russia cannot defend herself from nuclear attack from USA side.


what equilibrium? the equilibrium is already over since 18 years but some people still haven't noticed or won't accept this. no one prevents Russia from installing a shield in Canada but Canadians. no one prevents Russians to install such a shield in Poland other than Poles. as you can see USA suceeded in Poland and as far as i know Russia hasn't applied to Canada for such a shield so where's the problem? why do you think the US wants to nuke Russia? did you hide in a cave the last 20 years or something? Cold war is over and lost for Russia/USSR, get over it, whining doesn't help.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 22:33
Equilibrium in nuclear power obviously.
 
" no one prevents Russia from installing a shield in Canada but Canadians. "
There was a talk about installing ballistic missiles in Cuba just a month ago. Some american authorities started histeria on that question.
 
"why do you think the US wants to nuke Russia?"
If you kindly finish reading my post you will find the asnwer.
.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
  Quote Temujin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Aug-2008 at 22:41
Originally posted by Anton

Equilibrium in nuclear power obviously.


so what, USA and Russia are not the only nucelar powers in the world in case you haven't noticed that, take France, Israel and Pakistan for example, heck even Germany has nukes even though they're American ones.
 
" no one prevents Russia from installing a shield in Canada but Canadians. "
There was a talk about installing ballistic missiles in Cuba just a month ago. Some american authorities started histeria on that question.


then let's see how this one will turn out.
 
"why do you think the US wants to nuke Russia?"
If you kindly finish reading my post you will find the asnwer.


thats ridiculous, USA is not Nazi germany, the US has obviously already found other ways to procure their ressources. besides Russia is obviously offering their ressoruces to enrich itself and also uses it as a political tool. if Russia uses its ressources as a bitch, it shouldn't be surprised if it gets raped and shot in the face. Nuke
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 00:46

This is not that ridiculous from Russian point of view. USA started several wars past 10 years. At least one of them (Iraq) was clearly due to control over resources. Iran is unsecure for similar reasons. Why should Russia feel safe?

 
"if Russia uses its ressources as a bitch, it shouldn't be surprised if it gets raped and shot in the face. Nuke"
"did you hide in a cave the last 20 years or something? Cold war is over and lost for Russia/USSR, get over it, whining doesn't help."
 
I am not sure I understood your pathetics. I am not sure you understood it yourself. Smile 
.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 00:52
Here is the citate from NY Times that says exactly what I mean:
 
Originally posted by NY Times

Let’s start with us. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was among the group — led by George Kennan, the father of “containment” theory, Senator Sam Nunn and the foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum — that argued against expanding NATO, at that time.

It seemed to us that since we had finally brought down Soviet communism and seen the birth of democracy in Russia the most important thing to do was to help Russian democracy take root and integrate Russia into Europe. Wasn’t that why we fought the cold war — to give young Russians the same chance at freedom and integration with the West as young Czechs, Georgians and Poles? Wasn’t consolidating a democratic Russia more important than bringing the Czech Navy into NATO?

All of this was especially true because, we argued, there was no big problem on the world stage that we could effectively address without Russia — particularly Iran or Iraq. Russia wasn’t about to reinvade Europe. And the Eastern Europeans would be integrated into the West via membership in the European Union.

No, said the Clinton foreign policy team, we’re going to cram NATO expansion down the Russians’ throats, because Moscow is weak and, by the way, they’ll get used to it. Message to Russians: We expect you to behave like Western democrats, but we’re going to treat you like you’re still the Soviet Union. The cold war is over for you, but not for us.

“The Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams acted on the basis of two false premises,” said Mandelbaum. “One was that Russia is innately aggressive and that the end of the cold war could not possibly change this, so we had to expand our military alliance up to its borders. Despite all the pious blather about using NATO to promote democracy, the belief in Russia’s eternal aggressiveness is the only basis on which NATO expansion ever made sense — especially when you consider that the Russians were told they could not join. The other premise was that Russia would always be too weak to endanger any new NATO members, so we would never have to commit troops to defend them. It would cost us nothing. They were wrong on both counts.”

 
.
Back to Top
Władysław Warnencz View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian

Suspended

Joined: 28-Jun-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 175
  Quote Władysław Warnencz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 00:56
Anton,why do you only compare USA and Russia,as if they are the only countries in the world and only they can wage wars?What about Poland itself?What equilibrium is there between Poland and Russia?Russia has got nuclear weapons,with wich it can ruin whole Poland,and Poland doesn't have such weapons to do the same in respond.Now Poland tries at least to have some kind of defence and you say it is unfare towards Russia?It is a threat to Russia?So russians deserve the right to have nuclear weapons and threaten the small countries with them,but the small countries do not deserve protection from those weapons?As i already wrote - the system is not a threat to russian national security,it is only a threat to russian influence in the region and that is something good!
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph


Joined: 23-Jun-2006
Location: Bulgaria
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
  Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Aug-2008 at 11:25
Originally posted by Władysław Warnencz

Anton,why do you only compare USA and Russia,as if they are the only countries in the world and only they can wage wars?What about Poland itself?What equilibrium is there between Poland and Russia?Russia has got nuclear weapons,with wich it can ruin whole Poland,and Poland doesn't have such weapons to do the same in respond.Now Poland tries at least to have some kind of defence and you say it is unfare towards Russia?It is a threat to Russia?So russians deserve the right to have nuclear weapons and threaten the small countries with them,but the small countries do not deserve protection from those weapons?As i already wrote - the system is not a threat to russian national security,it is only a threat to russian influence in the region and that is something good!
 
Because Poland is protected by NATO organization including USA. If Russia starts nuclear war against Poland NATO will do the same to Russia.
.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 4>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.171 seconds.