[BartSimpson]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Russia has to realize that it is not a "big dog" anymore.

Eastern Europe will continue to gravitate towards the west (US, NATO, EU) and away from Russia. Russia has no right to use these countries as "buffers" or turn them into puppet states.

Russia is free to try to solve this "problem" with military means, but sooner or later they WILL bite off more than they can chew, and someone will hit them back hard.

But, you see, the lefties on this site are agitating their support of Russia and will simultaneously state, categorically, that missile defense programs don't work and then also state that the missile defense program is a threat to Russia while also not explaining exactly how a purely defensive system that doesn't work is a threat to Russia.

[saturn_656]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Russia has to realize that it is not a "big dog" anymore.

Eastern Europe will continue to gravitate towards the west (US, NATO, EU) and away from Russia. Russia has no right to use these countries as "buffers" or turn them into puppet states.

Russia is free to try to solve this "problem" with military means, but sooner or later they WILL bite off more than they can chew, and someone will hit them back hard.

But, you see, the lefties on this site are agitating their support of Russia and will simultaneously state, categorically, that missile defense programs don't work and then also state that the missile defense program is a threat to Russia while also not explaining exactly how a purely defensive system is a threat to Russia.

Even if the ABM system is fully functional, it can't (yet) handle the sheer amount of ICBM's Russia has stockpiled from the old Soviet glory days. Even if it could, Russia has some sort of new warhead that makes interception much more difficult (according to the Russians anyway).

So whether it works or not, the argument that the system is some sort of threat to Russia is 100% crap.

Russia is simply using the new ABM system as an excuse to stir the pot, to what end I'm not sure.

[Streaker]

Isn't it the ABM system that is stirring the pot?

[BartSimpson]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Even if the ABM system is fully functional, it can't (yet) handle the sheer amount of ICBM's Russia has stockpiled from the old Soviet glory days. Even if it could, Russia has some sort of new warhead that makes interception much more difficult (according to the Russians anyway).

Now you're getting to the heart of what's bugging the Russians and that is the fact that they don't have anywhere near the numbers of functional missiles or warheads as they did seventeen years ago. Nukes require a LOT of regular and costly maintainance, which is why Canada gave up being a nuclear armed nation a long time ago. The Russians have a lot of missiles in a lot of puscatels that won't ever get off the ground and then even if they do their warheads, at best, will be what's euphemistically called a fizzle.

That's why a missile defense that can shoot down ONLY ten missiles is such a threat to Russia. Because they may not even have ten functioning nuclear armed missiles in their entire inventory anymore.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

So whether it works or not, the argument that the system is some sort of threat to Russia is 100% crap.

Russia is simply using the new ABM system as an excuse to stir the pot, to what end I'm not sure.

Russia wants to get back everything they lost between 1989 and 1994. That's what this is about.

[BartSimpson]

Streaker Streaker:

Isn't it the ABM system that is stirring the pot?

In much the same way that locked doors upset burglars.

[Streaker]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Streaker Streaker:

Isn't it the ABM system that is stirring the pot?

In much the same way that locked doors upset burglars.

Except that there has been no burglar lately.

Once again, why bother stirring the pot when things have been peaceful as of late?

[Thanos]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Russia has to realize that it is not a "big dog" anymore.

Incorrect. The problem that's broken out is a result of the West not bothering to realize that Russia, despite all it's myriad demographic and social problems, is still a very big dog that shouldn't be trifled with. Anyone with a few thousand nuclear weapons at their disposal simply cannot be disregarded as cavalierly as lesser powers can be. The Russians have clearly signalled with their stomping of the Georgians that they will not tolerate Western/NATO interference in any of the lands that were once part of their old empire. At this stage we should be asking ourselves what we ourselves end up gaining by involving ourselves in irrelevant ethnic disputes in postage-stamp backwater countries that are still part of the Russian sphere of influence. Is triggering a major war with the Russians worth following the clearly discreditted neo-conservative crusader mantra of "democracy uber alles"? The common sense answer clearly has to be no.

And it's not favouring the Russians or their tactics when one acknowledges that they understand the Russian perspective. The United States was correctly and rightly angered when the Soviets attempted to put nuclear weapons into Cuba. The US aggressively pushed the matter as far as they could, right up to the brink of war, until the Russians caved and withdrew the weapons. With clearly documented decades-old history at our disposal how is it impossible to understand that the Russians have been feeling the exact same way, ever since the foolish NATO expansions into Eastern Europe began under Bill Clinton, as the US did during the Cuban crisis?

I'd say right now that anyone who doesn't understand how far the Russians can and will go when they've been angered should read up on what happened in World War 2.

[BartSimpson]

Streaker Streaker:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Streaker Streaker:

Isn't it the ABM system that is stirring the pot?

In much the same way that locked doors upset burglars.

Except that there has been no burglar lately.

Once again, why bother stirring the pot when things have been peaceful as of late?

Except that things haven't been peaceful, have they?

Iran is developing nuclear weapons. North Korea and Russia have both sold intermediate range missiles to Iran. Put the two togther and a modest missile defense for Europe is in order.

Further, the Russians need to be put in their place that they no longer run their former slave states and will not be allowed to dictate in Europe anymore.

[C.M. Burns]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Scape Scape:

The trillion dollar price tag comes to mind...

You're not paying for it so your point is????

So, the POINT, the very sharp POINT is that this 'defensive' [sic] missile system is part of the New American Century where FIRST STRIKE is the new paradigm. It's part of the lunatic strategy to encircle Russia and put a knife to it's throat. The only future possible in the PNAC madhouse is one wherein a nuclear war is not just a possibility but a pretty god-damned likely probability. With this system MAD goes out the window and MADNESS flies in and we will all PAY for it.

[C.M. Burns]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Except that things haven't been peaceful, have they?

Iran is developing nuclear weapons. North Korea and Russia have both sold intermediate range missiles to Iran. Put the two togther and a modest missile defense for Europe is in order.

Further, the Russians need to be put in their place that they no longer run their former slave states and will not be allowed to dictate in Europe anymore.

Except you're parroting lies straight outta FUX News and the Bush lie machine. Even your own intelligence agencies say the Iran is NOT developing nuclear weapons. And so what if they are? Israel has had over 200 nukes pointed at every Arab nation in the neighbourhood for decades. They'd be god-damned crazy NOT to want them!

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Russians already have the most extensive ABM defenses in the world, why should they be upset if Poland wants to be able to shoot down a mere ten missiles when Russia can supposedly shoot down hundreds of them?

Please explain to me the logic of condemning defensive weapons while being perfectly fine with offensive weapons?

What is wrong with a nation that has no offensive nuclear capability being able to defend itself and others from nuclear attack?

Russian ABM systems...you're kidding right?

Their 'ABM' system is a series of rockets designed to detonate nuclear warheads in the atmosphere. While the damage of a nuke going off 75,000 feet above your city will be less than one going off 15,000 feet, it is by no means a fool-proof or safe system. Fall-out alone will guarantee that the Russians take damage themselves. The West built something similar (remember BOMARC?) but due to our unwillingness to explode nukes above our own territory, they were filled with sand (at least in Canada).

The ABM/BMD/NMD system that the US is trying to deploy is far different. If successful, it would give the US the ability to launch a first strike, as its interceptors kill incoming warheads/missiles with kinetic kill missiles. There is no nuclear explosion and therefore little damage to the nation launching them.

Theoretically, once perfected, the US could build hundreds/thousands of interceptors and render everyone's nuclear arsenal irrelevant. My guess is that building an interceptor would probably be cheaper and faster than building an entire ICBM, even a dummy one. If it was truly 100% perfect, the US could launch first strikes to target other nations ICBM forces and they would be helpless to fire back. That is what the Chinese and Russians are decrying, the loss of their strategic force.

Mind you, I'm pretty sure the US would never do something so crazy, but the leaders in China and Russia are highly paranoid. Paranoid people always fear everyone else, because they (the paranoid) know what they would do in that situation, which is launch a first strike.

[bootlegga]

Thanos Thanos:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Russia has to realize that it is not a "big dog" anymore.

Incorrect. The problem that's broken out is a result of the West not bothering to realize that Russia, despite all it's myriad demographic and social problems, is still a very big dog that shouldn't be trifled with. Anyone with a few thousand nuclear weapons at their disposal simply cannot be disregarded as cavalierly as lesser powers can be. The Russians have clearly signalled with their stomping of the Georgians that they will not tolerate Western/NATO interference in any of the lands that were once part of their old empire. At this stage we should be asking ourselves what we ourselves end up gaining by involving ourselves in irrelevant ethnic disputes in postage-stamp backwater countries that are still part of the Russian sphere of influence. Is triggering a major war with the Russians worth following the clearly discreditted neo-conservative crusader mantra of "democracy uber alles"? The common sense answer clearly has to be no.

And it's not favouring the Russians or their tactics when one acknowledges that they understand the Russian perspective. The United States was correctly and rightly angered when the Soviets attempted to put nuclear weapons into Cuba. The US aggressively pushed the matter as far as they could, right up to the brink of war, until the Russians caved and withdrew the weapons. With clearly documented decades-old history at our disposal how is it impossible to understand that the Russians have been feeling the exact same way, ever since the foolish NATO expansions into Eastern Europe began under Bill Clinton, as the US did during the Cuban crisis?

I'd say right now that anyone who doesn't understand how far the Russians can and will go when they've been angered should read up on what happened in World War 2.

Very astute.

[Streaker]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Streaker Streaker:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

In much the same way that locked doors upset burglars.

Except that there has been no burglar lately.

Once again, why bother stirring the pot when things have been peaceful as of late?

Except that things haven't been peaceful, have they?

Iran is developing nuclear weapons. North Korea and Russia have both sold intermediate range missiles to Iran. Put the two togther and a modest missile defense for Europe is in order.

Further, the Russians need to be put in their place that they no longer run their former slave states and will not be allowed to dictate in Europe anymore.

Fergrissakes Iran isn't a threat to Poland or the Czech republic!

Wouldn't it all be so much easier if you Yanks would simply stop starting your moronic wars?

[C.M. Burns]

Oh, and by 'The next Bay of Pigs' do you mean the next complete fucking failure courtesy of the CIA?

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Russian ABM systems...you're kidding right?

The current Russian ABM system is the A-135 system using the Novator 53T6 and the OKB Fakel 51T6 interceptors. Neither is a nuclear weapon and instead are proximity weapons that detonate in the path of a missile sending some 16,000 to 25,000 tungsten balls at an oncoming target to obliterate it. After the US cancelled the ABM Treaty the Russians developed several more sites, not just the seven sites they kept around Moscow (of which five are currently operational).

And this is old news as the basic system became operational sometime in 1980.

So the US system is functionally the same as the one the Russians are using.

Update your facts, eh?

$1:

Their 'ABM' system is a series of rockets designed to detonate nuclear warheads in the atmosphere. While the damage of a nuke going off 75,000 feet above your city will be less than one going off 15,000 feet, it is by no means a fool-proof or safe system. Fall-out alone will guarantee that the Russians take damage themselves. The West built something similar (remember BOMARC?) but due to our unwillingness to explode nukes above our own territory, they were filled with sand (at least in Canada).

The ABM/BMD/NMD system that the US is trying to deploy is far different. If successful, it would give the US the ability to launch a first strike, as its interceptors kill incoming warheads/missiles with kinetic kill missiles. There is no nuclear explosion and therefore little damage to the nation launching them.

Theoretically, once perfected, the US could build hundreds/thousands of interceptors and render everyone's nuclear arsenal irrelevant. My guess is that building an interceptor would probably be cheaper and faster than building an entire ICBM, even a dummy one. If it was truly 100% perfect, the US could launch first strikes to target other nations ICBM forces and they would be helpless to fire back. That is what the Chinese and Russians are decrying, the loss of their strategic force.

Mind you, I'm pretty sure the US would never do something so crazy, but the leaders in China and Russia are highly paranoid. Paranoid people always fear everyone else, because they (the paranoid) know what they would do in that situation, which is launch a first strike.