[saturn_656]

Thanos Thanos:

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.

So you are of the opinion that these poor buggers who have been victimized, colonized, and browbeat by Russia for countless decades should resign themselves to being shit on by the Russians for eternity, or at least not count on any help from us.

Correct?

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

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?

That's not what I read...

$1:

The Soviet Union began a major upgrade of its system in 1978, which remains unfinished. The new system was a two-layer defense using two types of nuclear-armed interceptors -- an improved version of the Galosh, for intercepting warheads outside the atmosphere, and the high-acceleration Gazelle (similar to the US Sprint) for intercepts within the atmosphere.

con't

In recent years, the Russian public and press have been critical of the deployment of nuclear-armed interceptors so close to Moscow and of the high cost of maintaining and protecting the system. Some Russian defense officials, acknowledging its growing irrelevance in the face of a changed strategic situation. In February 1998, Russian Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev said at a press conference that Russia was "standing down a number of the ABM system's missiles from alert duty."6 The current state of readiness of the interceptor missiles is unclear. The radars associated with the system have other missions in addition to supporting the ABM system, so they remain operational.

Partially because of inertia, and partially because so many resources have already been expended on it, the system seems unlikely to be deactivated in the near future. However, the Defense Ministry is also unwilling to put in the amount of money necessary to keep the system operational. Instead, the Moscow system will most likely continue its decline.[

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/m ... ystem.html

This site mentions a Russian copy of Brilliant Pebbles (the A-135 you also mentioned), but say it's far from ready;

$1:

The Anti-Ballistic Missile defense system around Moscow had to be constantly upgraded in order to deal with new threats. Unfortunately, federal allocations were not enough to ensure its combat readiness.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russian ... o_999.html

Several sources I've read all support this. Of course, I could have just used Wikipedia...

The system you speak of is years behind the US system and barely operational, if indeed it even is operational. Maybe you've got a back door source or have more time to spend, but everything I've read is that the Russian kinetic kill BMD is way behind the US project.

[BartSimpson]

The Russian program is both ahead of and behind the US program. They're ahead in that their radar system is the more flexible system and they solved the 3D ballistic projection issue ahead of the US mostly because the US didn't bother studying the issue for 40 years. The US is ahead because the US program is using mostly off-the-shelf weapons and radars that have simply had the software tweaked or have been slaved to more modern computer systems.

And, take my word for it, the A-135 is not a nuclear armed system. It is because it is not nuclear armed that it still works and tests out pretty good.

[C.M. Burns]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

So you are of the opinion that these poor buggers who have been victimized, colonized, and browbeat by Russia for countless decades should resign themselves to being shit on by the Russians for eternity, or at least not count on any help from us.

Correct?

Dude, it was called the Soviet Union for a reason
Those FSU states did it to themselves.

PS Stalin was Georgian.

[Demian_164]

wrong.

[C.M. Burns]

Demian_164 Demian_164:

wrong.

Oh, so witty and insightful!
So what... Stalin wasn't Georgian?

Or the secret police, military, government of each FSU country wasn't comprised of citizens of those countries?

I think Poland is an an excellent example that when the peolpe got sick of it they threw off the Soviet yoke. Mostly bloodless as I recall. They pretty much got the ball rolling and all it took was a lot of solidarity.

*Edited for spelling and content.

[Demian_164]

the soviet republics didnt "do it to themselves" they were occupied by stalins forces and turned into satellite states.

[Scape]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Scape Scape:

Oh, no you don't Bart. What you are trying to limit this to is the tip of the iceberg that is missile defence.

Just in:

Medvedev is warning his country may respond to a U.S. missile shield in Europe through military means

The cost will be very high indeed.

Again, why all the upset since you say this doesn't work?

Thanos beat me to it:

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.

So, Bart. MD is a lit match and your throwing it in the face of a powder keg that is Russia. What do you think is going to happen?

[Thanos]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Thanos Thanos:

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.

So you are of the opinion that these poor buggers who have been victimized, colonized, and browbeat by Russia for countless decades should resign themselves to being shit on by the Russians for eternity, or at least not count on any help from us.

Correct?

It's not the duty of the Western world to fix the world, whether in Georgia, Darfur, or anywhere else. The rest of the world has their own responsibility to develop a decent standard of living for themselves instead of the West imposing it on them from outside. Most of the arguments to the contrary are crusaderist nonsense that emanates from the political chattering circles of the United States. Going by the standards of the Iraq debacle, do we really want to follow those who led the United States into the worst foreign policy disaster in it's entire history to take us into an openly confrontational situation with Russia? The reward is far too small for the immense risk that is involved, especially at the moment when Russia is significantly stronger than it was a few years ago thanks to their petrodollars while the United States is significantly weaker than it was a few years ago thanks to the attrition in Iraq and their own economic difficulties.

Georgia and the other former Russian imperial/Soviet provinces are clearly still in Russia's balliwick. I see no logic whatsoever in potentially triggering a major war with a still significantly powerful Russia over these places. The end result is too costly and potentially devastating to imagine, and it is not worth pushing the Russians up against a wall over.

I don't like it any more than you do, but these are the uncomfortable moments where we in the West find ourselves hoisted on the petard of our own ridiculous "democracy is super!" propaganda. We never should have exported this silliness to places like Georgia when we clearly knew how much it would eventually antagonize the Russians. Unfortunately it won't be the first time, nor the last, that people elsewhere suffered for the philosophical political delusions that the West lives under.

[fifeboy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Scape Scape:

We need missile defence about as much as we need asteroid defence.

You're a little out of step with the consensus of scientific thought on this one.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... roids.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... eroid.html

http://www.space.com/news/060628_neo_workshop.html

You missed this one:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/12/1206_041206_global_warming.html

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The Russian program is both ahead of and behind the US program. They're ahead in that their radar system is the more flexible system and they solved the 3D ballistic projection issue ahead of the US mostly because the US didn't bother studying the issue for 40 years. The US is ahead because the US program is using mostly off-the-shelf weapons and radars that have simply had the software tweaked or have been slaved to more modern computer systems.

And, take my word for it, the A-135 is not a nuclear armed system. It is because it is not nuclear armed that it still works and tests out pretty good.

No I agree that the A-135 is not a nuclear armed system, as it is an attempt to duplicate the Brilliant Pebble system. But it is, according to everything I've read, not fully operational and supplemented by another system that uses nuclear warheads.

[martin14]

Thanos Thanos:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Thanos Thanos:

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.

So you are of the opinion that these poor buggers who have been victimized, colonized, and browbeat by Russia for countless decades should resign themselves to being shit on by the Russians for eternity, or at least not count on any help from us.

Correct?

It's not the duty of the Western world to fix the world, whether in Georgia, Darfur, or anywhere else. The rest of the world has their own responsibility to develop a decent standard of living for themselves instead of the West imposing it on them from outside. Most of the arguments to the contrary are crusaderist nonsense that emanates from the political chattering circles of the United States. Going by the standards of the Iraq debacle, do we really want to follow those who led the United States into the worst foreign policy disaster in it's entire history to take us into an openly confrontational situation with Russia? The reward is far too small for the immense risk that is involved, especially at the moment when Russia is significantly stronger than it was a few years ago thanks to their petrodollars while the United States is significantly weaker than it was a few years ago thanks to the attrition in Iraq and their own economic difficulties.

Georgia and the other former Russian imperial/Soviet provinces are clearly still in Russia's balliwick. I see no logic whatsoever in potentially triggering a major war with a still significantly powerful Russia over these places. The end result is too costly and potentially devastating to imagine, and it is not worth pushing the Russians up against a wall over.

I don't like it any more than you do, but these are the uncomfortable moments where we in the West find ourselves hoisted on the petard of our own ridiculous "democracy is super!" propaganda. We never should have exported this silliness to places like Georgia when we clearly knew how much it would eventually antagonize the Russians. Unfortunately it won't be the first time, nor the last, that people elsewhere suffered for the philosophical political delusions that the West lives under.

this is all very well written, but comes with a one word response -- Munich

[Scape]

Realpolitik aside, what exactly are we doing? Let's face it South Ossetia is no holy land:

$1:

The question we must ask is: Are we willing to risk war, including nuclear holocaust, in order to fulfill the aspirations of Mikhail Saakashvili? While Bush and McCain speak of Saakashvili as if he’s a combination of Thomas Jefferson and Nelson Mandela, he’s seen by his own people as increasingly authoritarian and unbalanced. Last year, Saakashvili sent in his special forces to violently disperse opposition protesters in the capital city, followed by a declaration of martial law. He sacked the opposition television station (partly owned by Rupert Murdoch), exiled or jailed his political opponents, and stacked the courts with his own judges while removing neutral observers, leaving even onetime neocon cheerleaders like Bruce Jackson and Anne Applebaum feeling queasy. Hardly the image of the “small democratic nation” that everyone today touts.

The Russian response has, of course, been disproportionate and heavy-handed–exactly what’s to be expected of them ever since Boris Yeltsin first showed the world how post-Soviet Russia fights its wars, starting with Chechnya in 1994. Georgia has been terrorized by indiscriminate aerial bombing and the constant threat of invasion by a vastly superior Russian force–eerily reminiscent of NATO’s campaign against Serbia in 1999. Indeed, many observers believe that the current Russian response is a direct blowback of the Kosovo campaign, which is why there are so many similarities.

But what is the best way to respond? The neocons and even CNN reports talk about exploring military options, which is absurd given the consequences of war with nuclear-armed Russia. Woofing loudly like John McCain is likely to prove as effective as Bush’s woofing did with North Korea, before he was forced to crawl back to the negotiating table.

In fact, one of the most effective ways America could respond to this crisis is by rethinking its entire geopolitical approach of the past two decades, which has been hegemonic, arrogant, hypocritical and reckless. If we set a better example, then we could at least reclaim the moral authority, or “soft power,” that we once had.

Poland joining NATO is one thing and Russia did protest but let it pass but MD on their doorstep? That takes it to a new level as being in the MD clique is it's own mini-NATO all with alliances and corporate backing both economical and philosophically diametrically opposed to Russia's own. It would only be moments before a flash point erupted and they end up militarily opposed as well as corporate wars with private armies on a global scale and Georgia is a prime example. Russia is far from saintly but we are treating them like some lesser power that will roll over on command. We can't blockade them, we can't sanction them and we can't invade them. Do we seriously want to goad someone like Putin into playing hard ball? You can bet what side China will take and the EU won't do anything either. I think instead of Munich we should be thinking the Boxer rebellion with a much more disciplined leadership because if we are arrogant enough to stroll into the bears cave not loaded for bear then we will get exactly what we deserve here folks. Don't go waving red flags in front of bulls and you won't get gored.

[herbie]

Demian_164 Demian_164:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

2. The reaction of the Russians to threaten Poland with nuclear weapons is the finest argument for Poland to have a missile defense program that I can think of. It is also a fine argument for Poland to pursue a nuclear weapons program of their own.

i disagree. The russians are threatening poland BECAUSE of the missile defense, and because they question their intentions.

You make that sound like it's merely your opinion.

[Bacardi4206]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

A couple things....

1. If everyone is so sure that missile defenses don't work then why get all upset about their deployment? Wouldn't the proper reaction be: "Oh, those silly Americans wasting money on missile defense!"

2. The reaction of the Russians to threaten Poland with nuclear weapons is the finest argument for Poland to have a missile defense program that I can think of. It is also a fine argument for Poland to pursue a nuclear weapons program of their own.

The reason the Russians are threatening Poland is because they diddn't want them to sign with the U.S. on the missle defense program. If they diddn't sign it, they probally wouldn't have needed it.

Further more, having poland develope there own nuclear weapons program as a arguement is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Just because some little super-power cry baby's never got rid of theres when they were suppose to, and were told to like the U.S. and Russia that wave there nuclear super power weapons around threatening people. Last thing the world needs is more countries with that power, doing the same thing.

Nuclear weapons are the greatest mistake humans have ever invented, they serve no purpose other then mass destruction, and giving pussy nations the will to threaten others. Because without there nukes, they aren't anything.