Obama jettisons missile shield plans

[Xiahou]

He claims the reason was technical, I think we all know it was a political one. Russia was never happy with how cozy the US was getting with their former satellites and the missile shield was symbolic of that. So naturally, Obama caved on it and left our allies feeling stupid. Sec. Gates, ever the shill, was for the shield before he was against it- his views changing with the administration.

I could go on, but GlobalSecurity.org (http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/090918470-obama-administrations-new-miss.htm) says it better than I can:
This week, President Obama reneged on a long-standing agreement with America's allies and formally abandoned the "third site" missile defense plan. The U.S. will no longer be deploying 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic, a plan formerly regarded as necessary for defending America's friends and allies as well as the homeland from intercontinental and intermediate-range ballistic missiles.


The decision runs contrary to U.S. strategic interests and will undermine security commitments to America's allies. The new plan to focus on the short- and medium-range threats from Iran:


* Represents a major reversal in American strategic thinking on missile defense,

* Leaves America more vulnerable to the emerging nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea, and

* Harms bilateral relationships with key allies in Eastern and Central Europe.


Only Russia has expressed satisfaction with the announcement, which is a public relations victory for Moscow and a green light to Russian aggression and interference in the region. Congress should reject this revised plan, which is based on no new intelligence, and amend the pending 2010 defense spending bill to fully fund missile defense capabilities--including those for the third site. America can indeed afford to spend what it takes to counter all potential Iranian nuclear threats, from short- to long-range.They go on to put the lie to Obama's claims that long range Iranian missiles aren't a concern...
In February, Iran successfully launched its first domestically produced satellite into orbit using an Iranian-built rocket. As Jim Phillips and Baker Spring note, "this technological milestone, combined with Iran's accelerating efforts to enrich the uranium required for a nuclear weapon, is extremely worrisome. Only ten other countries have successfully launched satellites into orbit. Iran's new satellite-launching capability demonstrates rapid progress toward developing a long-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)--an advancement that would greatly extend Tehran's military reach."


Global Security Newswire reported in June that "with support from outside sources, Iran within six years could produce an ICBM capable of hitting the United States." This data was contained in a report by the U.S. Air Force's National Air and Space Intelligence Center made public by the Federation of American Scientists.He's throwing away years of development and negotiation and squandering the trust of our allies.... for what? The hope that Russia will become more pliable on Iran? :no:

[Lord Winter]

It's not like the missle shield would actually do anything against Russia anyway. I think MAD is and will always remain the best way to stop nuclear war barring complete disarment.

[Xiahou]

It's not like the missle shield would actually do anything against Russia anyway. Exactly, the purpose of the shield was to stop rogue actors who would not be able to launch near the number of missiles Russia could. Russia was aware of that too- they knew it was no threat. It really came down to them not wanting us meddling in their former sphere of influence. And Obama knuckled under.


I think MAD is and will always remain the best way to stop nuclear war barring complete disarment. And if you read further in the article, they don't seem to think Obama has much interest in MAD either.


The President appears to have abandoned MAD and placed all of the U.S. eggs in the disarmament basket. President Obama has already made numerous commitments to reduce U.S. nuclear stockpiles and sign onto expanded disarmament treaties while doing nothing to shore up the nation's missile defenses.

[Fragony]

It's not like the missle shield would actually do anything against Russia anyway.

Wasn't meant for that, but I am glad it's gone personally. Russia is not a country I am willing to provoke.

[Sarmatian]

That's because Obama understands that for the long term security of the United States, good relations with Russia are far more important than a missile shield, which costs a fortune and may not even work...

This is not a Russian PR victory but a victory for the Russo-American relations that were going uphill, than suffered a blow because of Kosovo, Georgia and the shield and now hopefully they can go uphill again, and those relations are extremely important for global security, not just security of US and Russia...

[Husar]

Agree with Sarmatian, that warmongering piece of bile you quote in the OP is just a testimony for the author's inflated balls and a "US has to keep it's influence in Europe" stance which is just the opposite of, yet the same as the "Russia has to keep it's influence in Europe" stance. You know what? You can put your rockets back into your trousers, here in Europe we make love, not war with the russian bear.
And Obama understands that.

[Furunculus]

this is a great shame, it is bad for the US as it has burnt allies in europe, it is bad because Poland and Czech have lost trust in the US for using them as pawns in a bargaining game with Russia, and it's bad for Britain as the anglo-centric bent of Poland and Czech is damaged and they will be tempted to look for another geo-political axis for support............. which within europe leaves only the Franco/German axis.

[rory_20_uk]

Oh woe! Some tiny, weak countries in Eastern Europe are upset. Their options besides the USA / NATO? Go back to the country they've been spending 50 years escaping. They have no cards they can play.

The technology is still useful, and I'm sure hasn't been scrapped.
If Eastern Europe want it so much, perhaps they can cough up the money for it.

America has to spend wisely and the missile shield isn't an example of it.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Another sensible decision from mr. Obama. I'm starting to like the guy more and more...

Oh, and just why is it simply impossible for his opponents to stop lying? The article said "noone but russia was happy about it".... Uhm, the entire NATO is celebrating it :dizzy2:

What will happen next? I think it's quite obvious. Russia will make a friendly move, not a hostile one. And the worlds becomes a little safer...

[Don Corleone]

Has anyone stopped and considered the very likely possibility that Iran is getting their fissible material, centriguges and other necessary components FROM Russia?

They invaded Georgia and forcibly repatriated lands they had scant claim to. We humored them. They shut off gas to all of Europe last winter. We begged them. Now, we've weakened ourselves not to Russia, but to Iran, and made it clear around the world the reason we were doing it was because we're afraid of the Russians.

How can this do anything but embolden further aggression by Putin?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Polish_PM_wouldnt_take_US_calls.html?showall

[rory_20_uk]

Has anyone stopped and considered the very likely possibility that Iran is getting their fissible material, centriguges and other necessary components FROM Russia?

They invaded Georgia and forcibly repatriated lands they had scant claim to. We humored them. They shut off gas to all of Europe last winter. We begged them. Now, we've weakened ourselves not to Russia, but to Iran, and made it clear around the world the reason we were doing it was because we're afraid of the Russians.

How can this do anything but embolden further aggression by Putin?

So, that's Bad. Giving nukes and technology to Israel is fine (as it was America that did that). Tech to Taiwan? Who could that possibly annoy?

As has been pointed out by Russia and others, the defence system wouldn't have made the slightest difference against a Russian attack - there were going to be 16 missiles based in Europe. Even assuming 100% success that still leaves several thousand more... And I have a sneaky feeling that Russia would have the radar base and missile site high up the list of targets.

They shut off gas as bills weren't paid. They overlooked them not being paid for political reasons.

We've let India and Pakistan develop nukes with barely a murmur. North Korea? Less said the better.

So why is Iran this massive threat? America et al invaded two neighbours, and supplies at least two more with advanced weaponry. We expect Iran to sit there docilely, as to defend itself in any way is apparently aggression - when Israel invades neighbours this is of course defence.

Russia has watched America / NATO erode into what was the Warsaw Pact and is currently digging around in Afghanistan - something they've not liked people doing since at least the 18th century. This is, of course fine. Russia pushing back is an act of aggression.

America seems to feel it can launch missiles into foreign countries without sanction, invade to support puppets and bolster regimes that break almost every human rights law there is going and that's fine.

But no one else is allowed to, OK? Because whatever America does it right, mainly as it is doing it... :wall:

~:smoking:

[Lemur]

There's been quite a lot written (http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14484342) and said on this subject in the last 24 hours. Consensus seems to be that a smaller, sea-based missile defense makes more sense anyway (http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS201737+04-May-2009+PRN20090504). Note that SecDef asked for this.

[gaelic cowboy]

This is not a Russian PR victory but a victory for the Russo-American relations that were going uphill, than suffered a blow because of Kosovo, Georgia and the shield and now hopefully they can go uphill again, and those relations are extremely important for global security, not just security of US and Russia...

Those relations you talk of were never sincere on either side and thats as it should be if any of us were honest about it.

Russia's strategic interest is to meddle in its near abroad to create arcs of instability which it can then control. This control then puts a space between Russia and Nato which is a sensible precaution for any nation state.

America on the otherhand will attempt any action which enlarges Europe to Russia's border hence the courting of Georgians and Ukraine etc etc. This means that Russia is then at a disadvantage and must commit resources to defending frontiers etc which it can ill afford all very sensible from a US viewpoint.

Missle defence is probably being abandoned because Obama feels he can get a deal from Iran eventually by agreeing to some of Russia's concerns. Pretty soon Iran would find access to certain technology and materials restricted. This means it will be required to do it all itself which may or may not lengthen the timeline to a workable bomb. As a result Iran will be vulnerable to an Airstrike because new kit will be unavailable to buy from Russia.



As has been pointed out by Russia and others, the defence system wouldn't have made the slightest difference against a Russian attack - there were going to be 16 missiles based in Europe. Even assuming 100% success that still leaves several thousand more... And I have a sneaky feeling that Russia would have the radar base and missile site high up the list of targets.

What was all the Russian fuss about so if not to cause division and scaremongering the real reason is that Russia needs to ensure that former satelites are not part of any major Nato projects which forever lock the door on there meddling ability.

Russia has played its hand very well and can now capitalise on a backdown by Washington which is most likely part of its plan for dealing with Iran however ten euro says they will find some excuse to weasel out any deal on Iran. This is because they must ensure Iran can stymie or cramp American influence in the middle east.

This meddling may seem counter productive until one realises that the chaos allows Russia to be seen as one of the big players sorting the worlds problems. A world where the middle east and the Causasus region are stable does not advance Russian strategic interest stability only helps Europe and America.

The missle shield is also being abandoned in order to return Nato to its previous mode the whole Georgian affair and the missle defence plan caused huge ructions and division in Nato and Europe. Russia of course attempted to exploit this so the US is naturally removing the thing which Russia can exploit removing the argument form the table as it where leaves Russia with less cards to deal.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, first of all, there was an overwhelming popular dissent with the decisions of the Eastern European governments, as the people wanted nothing with the missile defences. And as a matter of fact, Eastern Europe is now safer, as Russia no longer has to aim its own atomics at the little nations that would rather mind their own business and prosper than live with the thought of megatons of fusionable material aimed at them.

Why would those nations seek to be involved in a global power-game? Sure, for an American, a conservative one especially, this seems to be tantamount to giving up, kneeling before Russia. But while Americans are safe in their relatively isolated continent, the European states will suffer the worst, in the case of war, which is what the missile shield is designed for. Diplomacy is all about giving up some things while gaining others. This is not such a splendid time for an arms race. In my thinking, the "Eastern and Central European Allies" are more likely to be relieved than upset.

Finally, from what the BBC News wrote, it seems the missile system merely detonates the warheads hurtling towards a target, instead of disabling them. Basically, just an explosion in a different place. But in what place? Above the territory of the Central Europe?

Leaves America more vulnerable to the emerging nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea, and
...And if the missiles are designed to protect against Iran or DPRK(which is utter rubbish), then would it not be logical to place them in Iraq, Israel, Turkey or such to protect again Iran, and in Japan to cover DPRK? I honestly have no idea what Mr. Bush's plan was when he placed those missiles there, to enrage Russia. I see no other purpose. What is the gain?

green light to Russian aggression and interference in the region
I fail to see how Russians can exert aggression and interference on NATO and EU states. Other than the usual natural gas-blackmail. I am beginning to be concerned with the credibility of the OP's sources... Honestly, that statement is downright farcical.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why would those nations seek to be involved in a global power-game? Sure, for an American, a conservative one especially, this seems to be tantamount to giving up, kneeling before Russia. But while Americans are safe in their relatively isolated continent, the European states will suffer the worst, in the case of war, which is what the missile shield is designed for. Diplomacy is all about giving up some things while gaining others. This is not such a splendid time for an arms race. In my thinking, the "Eastern and Central European Allies" are more likely to be relieved than upset.


Its obvious through bandwagonning with the preeminent power they safeguard themselves and completely ensure Russian meddling is removed. Russian actual dominence of Poland etc is only a few years back and naturally they will attempt everything to continue removing the last vestiges of even imagined influence.

If Russia had been in a position back in the late 1990s to prevent the countries who joined the EU in 2004 they most certainly would have tried but they were not so EU and Nato integration happened. This does not mean Russia has no means to interfere in the internal politics of these countries in fact it makes it imperative from a Russian strategic position.

[Whacker]

So, that's Bad. Giving nukes and technology to Israel is fine (as it was America that did that).

You misspelled "France" as "America". Just a minor point.

[Sarmatian]

Those relations you talk of were never sincere on either side and thats as it should be if any of us were honest about it.

Russia's strategic interest is to meddle in its near abroad to create arcs of instability which it can then control. This control then puts a space between Russia and Nato which is a sensible precaution for any nation state.

America on the otherhand will attempt any action which enlarges Europe to Russia's border hence the courting of Georgians and Ukraine etc etc. This means that Russia is then at a disadvantage and must commit resources to defending frontiers etc which it can ill afford all very sensible from a US viewpoint.

Missle defence is probably being abandoned because Obama feels he can get a deal from Iran eventually by agreeing to some of Russia's concerns. Pretty soon Iran would find access to certain technology and materials restricted. This means it will be required to do it all itself which may or may not lengthen the timeline to a workable bomb. As a result Iran will be vulnerable to an Airstrike because new kit will be unavailable to buy from Russia.

Cold War ended a long time ago, mate, world's a much different place nowadays. Russian desire not to be surrounded by NATO is a perfectly sensible and legitimate one. On the other hand, Russia is a threat as much as NATO makes it.

NATO, or US if you will, and Russia need to have good relations. The alternative to pursuing that course is taking actions that further diminish power and influence of Russia. That may or may not work, and even if it does, it will certainly provoke Russia. What makes it even more complicated is that it is not just US-Russia game, it involves a lot of us in between.

You can poke the bear only to an extent. If you do it too much, it will react. So, one course takes you to an angry bear, the other one to a cuddly bear. Makes it perfectly clear to me which one should be taken, even if it slower, longer and generally more difficult path (which I don't think it is, btw)

[Louis VI the Fat]

America brings freedom and democratic stability in Europe. Russia brings authoritarianism and subjugation.

The wall shot people fleeing from the East to the West, not the other way round.



I doubt the technological and strategic benefits of the proposed missile shield. But I would've liked the marriage of American and East European strategic interests.

But then, part of me secretly rejoices about this as much as I did back when Georgia was left last year to fend the Russians alone. The ultra-nationalists in Poland and Georgia put all their hopes on America (well, on the neo-cons), showing Europe nothing but scorn and insults. With the annual billions of European money steadily flowing into Poland, and the Americans not living up to their promised missile shield, perhaps East Europe will again look to Europe, to democracy, and to the combination of these two, for their safety against Russia.

Guess that life insurance that the Georgians and Poles sought to buy in Iraq didn't pay off after all. Good. Back to building a democratic world instead of ultra-conservative new world orders.

[Sarmatian]

America brings freedom and democratic stability in Europe. Russia brings authoritarianism and subjugation.

The wall shot people fleeing from the East to the West, not the other way round.


Interesting thoughts but the Cold War is over, the wall is torn down, no one shoots from it anymore and the state that did that no longer exists... Welcome to the 21st century.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Most of NATO seems quite happy with this, only the US conservative movement voicing strong disapproval.

This is, in good part, because the US conservative movement would prefer US military power to be predominant and would like our diplomacy to be closer to the "shut up and do what I say" end of the scale. This tendency is hardly unique to the USA -- lots of our NATO pals and a host of others have done this in the past. Part of human nature.

What is to be done about Russian assertiveness? They too have this tendency.

The missile shield was, at least in part, a way to shore up Poland and the Chek Republic through the time honored "if you attack them, you'll also kill us which we will have to react to" approach. Is keeping the bear happy the better alternative?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Interesting thoughts but the Cold War is over, the wall is torn down, no one shoots from it anymore and the state that did that no longer exists... Welcome to the 21st century.Tell it to the Russians.

As soon as democratic European states can decide their own course without Russian threats or outright interference, I'll welcome Russia to the 21st century.

[HoreTore]

Tell it to the Russians.

As soon as democratic European states can decide their own course without Russian threats or outright interference, I'll welcome Russia to the 21st century.

Bah, you know very well that we're doing the very same thing, and you also know that we care first and foremost about ourselves, and the lives of the untermenschen second, just like Russia does.

[Louis VI the Fat]

* Poisons HoreTore with polonium *

[Aemilius Paulus]

As soon as democratic European states can decide their own course without Russian threats or outright interference, I'll welcome Russia to the 21st century.
By this reasoning, US should not have made it to 21st either... HoreTore is correct. And what is that I heard about French meddling in its former colonies?

[Sarmatian]

Is keeping the bear happy the better alternative?

This isn't about keeping the bear happy but rather, don't poke it in the eye. There's a fine line between those two.


Tell it to the Russians.

As soon as democratic European states can decide their own course without Russian threats or outright interference, I'll welcome Russia to the 21st century.

Same can be said for American interference, and since the break-up of the Soviet Union, I've seen far more American interference than Russian.

Start with wikipedia, it's downhill from there...

And which European democratic state can't decide its future because of Russian interference? If you say Georgia, I swear I'll take the next flight to France and spank your bottom until it goes purple.


And what is that I heard about French meddling in its former colonies?

You mean French still meddle in their former colonies??? Nooo, it can't be...

[gaelic cowboy]

Cold War ended a long time ago, mate, world's a much different place nowadays. Russian desire not to be surrounded by NATO is a perfectly sensible and legitimate one. On the other hand, Russia is a threat as much as NATO makes it.

NATO, or US if you will, and Russia need to have good relations. The alternative to pursuing that course is taking actions that further diminish power and influence of Russia. That may or may not work, and even if it does, it will certainly provoke Russia. What makes it even more complicated is that it is not just US-Russia game, it involves a lot of us in between.

You can poke the bear only to an extent. If you do it too much, it will react. So, one course takes you to an angry bear, the other one to a cuddly bear. Makes it perfectly clear to me which one should be taken, even if it slower, longer and generally more difficult path (which I don't think it is, btw)

You missed my central point both countries interests conflict with the others long term interest

I also acknowledged straight off in my post that not wanting to be surrounded was Moscows central plan.

US Russian relations are still going to be based on mutual distrust which is kept in bounds as it always has been by mutual annihilation.

Your assertation that you can only poke the Bear so long works both ways Russia can only play at the bully as long as it has a big stick and it can only afford the stick by selling oil and gas to Europe. Russia may get some short term advantages by following these plans but eventually the bullied gets fed up calls the bluff and finds it was all just bluster. Hence the real reason for intervention in Georgia inserting complient governments in the region prevents all sorts of long term pipeline projects etc.

The Cold War may be over but the politics will as always be about the cash as it always really has been.

[gaelic cowboy]

This isn't about keeping the bear happy but rather, don't poke it in the eye. There's a fine line between those two.

I would like to know what you mean by this statement about not poking a bear if your talking about the missile shield that is as Tribesman is fond of saying is total bollix.

If this missile shield was so ineffective and costly why kick up such a fuss. If Russian nukes could not be possibly be stopped by it what reason could there be that this was a danger to the Russian US relationship.

The fine line was really on the Russian side they cannot and must not allow anyone in the area termed their Near Abroad to get the idea that they can remove themselves from Kremlin orbit without consequence.

Russia will continue to test and probe for weakness in both the EU and NATO because as they see it it is a matter of survival. All those colour revolutions as they were called caught them napping suddenly the game had changed and they hadn't even noticed they cannot allow anymore such happenings.

[Husar]

Most of NATO seems quite happy with this, only the US conservative movement voicing strong disapproval.

This is, in good part, because the US conservative movement would prefer US military power to be predominant and would like our diplomacy to be closer to the "shut up and do what I say" end of the scale. This tendency is hardly unique to the USA -- lots of our NATO pals and a host of others have done this in the past. Part of human nature.

What is to be done about Russian assertiveness? They too have this tendency.
Yeah, like I said, both have such tendencies and I don't like them a lot.


The missile shield was, at least in part, a way to shore up Poland and the Chek Republic through the time honored "if you attack them, you'll also kill us which we will have to react to" approach. Is keeping the bear happy the better alternative?
If we show the bear that we want to work with him and not against him we can influence him, as sarmatian said it may take longer but if it works it creates a lot less tension and problems than a constant struggle to keep the bear down while it's trying to wrestle it's way back to the top.
I mean 1200 years back you wouldn't have thought it possible to have a discussion with a Norwegian as he'd pillage your village but nowadays they're the most liberal hippie commies of us all. ~;)

[gaelic cowboy]

Yeah, like I said, both have such tendencies and I don't like them a lot.


If we show the bear that we want to work with him and not against him we can influence him,

Not true the Bear does not care what anyone thinks because it has its own agenda.


as sarmatian said it may take longer but if it works it creates a lot less tension and problems than a constant struggle to keep the bear down while it's trying to wrestle it's way back to the top.

Why does Russia need to get back to the top why this need to fight the inevitable unless its fighting against its own irrelevancy


I mean 1200 years back you wouldn't have thought it possible to have a discussion with a Norwegian as he'd pillage your village but nowadays they're the most liberal hippie commies of us all. ~;)

1200 yrs ago the vikings barely had writing and reading in a tribal culture whats Russia's excuse

[Tellos Athenaios]

What was one to expect? Of course the plan was going to be scrapped. It was too expensive given the then economical situation (what with a war or two going on); it goes right against the wishes of the biggest partners of the US; Iraq & Afghanistan are best summarized as a quagmire; it goes right against the biggest creditors & (future) suppliers...

[OverKnight]

Anyone here remember the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) from the '80s? I'm seeing a lot of parallels between the arc of this system and the last one. I think the only remotely useful thing to come out of it were Patriot missiles, and even that has its detractors.

SDI was a boondoggle, but it was a cool boondoggle. Satellites with frickin' lasers.

Makes me want to go watch Real Genius again.

[Husar]

Not true the Bear does not care what anyone thinks because it has its own agenda.
Who doesn't have their own agenda? The article in the opening post is full of it.


Why does Russia need to get back to the top why this need to fight the inevitable unless its fighting against its own irrelevancy
Why do the USA need a missile shield in Europe except to get back to their now irrelevant cold war world police status?


1200 yrs ago the vikings barely had writing and reading in a tribal culture whats Russia's excuse
Vodka?

[Brenus]

You misspelled "France": It wasn’t intentional… Er, yeah, it is what I was told. It came after the Mirage and the AMX 13, and the Vedettes de Cherbourg, and the French Pilots in Israel (oops, never happened, sorry), well…:sweatdrop:

“Back to building a democratic world instead of ultra-conservative new world orders.” Ura pobieda.

“Tell it to the Russians.” They know it. They had democracy made by Eltsin or "the Plunder of Russia by Oligarchs" all former communist becoming good capitalists…

“As soon as democratic European states can decide their own course without Russian threats or outright interference, I'll welcome Russia to the 21st century.”
Er, Kosovo, Croatia, Bosnia were peace was imposed by BOMBING better known as peaceful tool in any language.
Or perhaps use of force in self defined right of intervention for humanitarian need and avoiding human catastrophe is just a Western privilege?
I will not put Georgia in a Democracy side anyway… (that to prevent any counter offensive about Milosevic’s Serbia).:beam:

“You mean French still meddle in their former colonies???” Never. It is collateral agreement and Military Cooperation… It is their free will and choice to welcome our soldiers, expat and experts.
:inquisitive:

[Furunculus]

Why would those nations seek to be involved in a global power-game? Sure, for an American, a conservative one especially, this seems to be tantamount to giving up, kneeling before Russia. But while Americans are safe in their relatively isolated continent, the European states will suffer the worst, in the case of war, which is what the missile shield is designed for. Diplomacy is all about giving up some things while gaining others. This is not such a splendid time for an arms race. In my thinking, the "Eastern and Central European Allies" are more likely to be relieved than upset.

Well, first of all, there was an overwhelming popular dissent with the decisions of the Eastern European governments, as the people wanted nothing with the missile defences. And as a matter of fact, Eastern Europe is now safer, as Russia no longer has to aim its own atomics at the little nations that would rather mind their own business and prosper than live with the thought of megatons of fusionable material aimed at them.


why? because poland in particular has fresh memories of being divided up and butchered on a scale that few other nations have experienced since Genghis was roaming the plains, they require security.

eastern europe is not safer, not even by a tiny little bit. russia was not going to do anything, it's a dead power that relies to intimidation to do what it is physically incapable of. the only result is that poland feels less safe.

[Furunculus]

America brings freedom and democratic stability in Europe. Russia brings authoritarianism and subjugation.
I doubt the technological and strategic benefits of the proposed missile shield. But I would've liked the marriage of American and East European strategic interests.

But then, part of me secretly rejoices about this as much as I did back when Georgia was left last year to fend the Russians alone. The ultra-nationalists in Poland and Georgia put all their hopes on America (well, on the neo-cons), showing Europe nothing but scorn and insults. With the annual billions of European money steadily flowing into Poland, and the Americans not living up to their promised missile shield, perhaps East Europe will again look to Europe, to democracy, and to the combination of these two, for their safety against Russia.

Guess that life insurance that the Georgians and Poles sought to buy in Iraq didn't pay off after all. Good. Back to building a democratic world instead of ultra-conservative new world orders.

agreed, we have a similar view of the aims of the missile shield, and the impact of its abandonment, and I too want to see the US and europe welded together in strategic interests.

where we differ is this point, you believe it a good thing that obama ditched the poles and czechs, whereas i see it as a tragedy.

apparently not, but this has nothing to do new-world orders, insomuch as the missile shield will still happen, the only result is that they lost some allies within the EU.

[Furunculus]

Anyone here remember the Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) from the '80s? I'm seeing a lot of parallels between the arc of this system and the last one. I think the only remotely useful thing to come out of it were Patriot missiles, and even that has its detractors.

SDI was a boondoggle, but it was a cool boondoggle. Satellites with frickin' lasers.

Makes me want to go watch Real Genius again.

except that SDI did its jobs perfectly, along with Cruise and Pershing its upped the stakes of the game to the point where the USSR decided to fold.

[gaelic cowboy]

except that SDI did its jobs perfectly, along with Cruise and Pershing its upped the stakes of the game to the point where the USSR decided to fold.

This I agree with the big power game if you want to call it is essentially a game of poker where no wants to cash in there chips.

Each side knows the other has cards that can win so they constantly check and raise each other.

The game depends on both sides understanding that neither side will react stupidly to the others raising of the stakes.

This however is the flaw in the game as it essentially becomes a game where you must decide the likely outcome of your action in the others mind.

The Russian still had a hand of cards but where eventually going to run out of chips which meant they either must call or fold. The entire Reagan era was essentially a spending spree of massive proportions the Soviets had only a few chips left so they had to fold and the wall came down.

The only problem with this type of game is not that people have nukes but that they must decide what the other thinks of their own actions the Cold War essentially settled into a rut it followed for years.

One point the missile shield is addressing is the problem with major proliferation and what the reduction of nuclear weapons has in this nuclear era. Put simply the less nuclear weapons there are in the equation of power between two states the more likely they are to be used in this post Cold War era.

In effect it didn't matter if it never worked as long as Iran thought it could.

[Sarmatian]

You missed my central point both countries interests conflict with the others long term interest

I also acknowledged straight off in my post that not wanting to be surrounded was Moscows central plan.

US Russian relations are still going to be based on mutual distrust which is kept in bounds as it always has been by mutual annihilation.

Your assertation that you can only poke the Bear so long works both ways Russia can only play at the bully as long as it has a big stick and it can only afford the stick by selling oil and gas to Europe. Russia may get some short term advantages by following these plans but eventually the bullied gets fed up calls the bluff and finds it was all just bluster. Hence the real reason for intervention in Georgia inserting complient governments in the region prevents all sorts of long term pipeline projects etc.

The Cold War may be over but the politics will as always be about the cash as it always really has been.

No, you missed my point. Since the end of the cold war, what has Russia done to threaten NATO? Are there any invasion plans, troops on the border, closed borders, general hostility? Does Russia want to conquer Norway, Germany, France, Italy... ?

No, in the last 20 years, Russia has opened it's borders to the West, it trades with west more than ever before, they've opened new lines communication with NATO, they didn't hinder Americans in Afghanistan (and believe me, they could have), they actually helped. They've given access across their territory for easier logistics etc... Russia has done nothing to threaten core nato members. In fact, if someone in the 70's said that this level of cooperation and dialogue between Russia and NATO would happen in the 21st century, he would've been probably considered crazy. And what has Russia gotten in return? A NATO that wants to surround it from all sides. A US that backs, arms and trains the army of less than democratic regimes on Russian borders, that exerts great pressure on political leadership in Ukraine to join nato even though it is clear that Ukrainians aren't that happy with that idea...

That is my point, Russia isn't a threat to NATO unless NATO makes it a threat. What has NATO been doing for the last 20 years is pushing Russia closer to China. Even though Russia naturally is leaning to the west, it's not easy to do that when the west not just doesn't want you there, but is actively pushing you away.


why? because poland in particular has fresh memories of being divided up and butchered on a scale that few other nations have experienced since Genghis was roaming the plains, they require security.

eastern europe is not safer, not even by a tiny little bit. russia was not going to do anything, it's a dead power that relies to intimidation to do what it is physically incapable of. the only result is that poland feels less safe.

Excuse me? Not too long ago I was convinced that my countrymen are suffering from the strongest victim complex in Europe but I've got to admit that Poles take the cake. The area they lost in WW2 was hardly inhabited by Poles, and Belorussian, Ukrainians and others that lived there weren't that much unhappy when the Red Army marched in. Poland was compensated after the war at the expanse of Germany but Poles still like to think how pre-ww2 Poland was this heaven on earth, democratic country that didn't persecute anyone and where everyone lived together in harmony.

Also, let's be realistic, not that many Poles were actually happy that shield is gonna be based in Poland. Czechs were even less enthusiastic. Out of the Poles that were happy about it, well, a significant majority of them were far right nutjobs whose frame of mind is: anything that pisses off Russia = Good. You may also insert Germany instead of Russia, it won't lose much accuracy.

[Zim]

Too bad, although I can see why he chose to drop that program. Seems a bit of a waste for Poland after they risked so much to accept it, though.

[Furunculus]

why? because poland in particular has fresh memories of being divided up and butchered on a scale that few other nations have experienced since Genghis was roaming the plains, they require security.

Excuse me? Not too long ago I was convinced that my countrymen are suffering from the strongest victim complex in Europe but I've got to admit that Poles take the cake. The area they lost in WW2 was hardly inhabited by Poles, and Belorussian, Ukrainians and others that lived there weren't that much unhappy when the Red Army marched in. Poland was compensated after the war at the expanse of Germany but Poles still like to think how pre-ww2 Poland was this heaven on earth, democratic country that didn't persecute anyone and where everyone lived together in harmony.


i refer to the fact that 20% of Poland's population disappeared because of WW2, not about whether they lost a bit of land or not, and i couldn't care less whether some people think it was a utopia pre WW2. poland was butchered and brutalised horrifically only seventy years ago, security from belligerant over-sized neighbours IS important to them.

[Lemur]

Seems a bit of a waste for Poland after they risked so much to accept it, though.
Maybe tough on the Polish government, but polls show the Polish people (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/But_the_Polish_public_likes_it.html?showall) are fine with the change.


A Polish-speaking reader sends over this early poll from the GfK Polonia Research Institute on Obama's decision to cancel the missile defense site in Poland.

The result: A plurality think it's a "good decision for Poland," while only 31% think it's a bad decision.

The poll exposes what's long been a divide in those countries: The leaders don't want to appear weak vis-a-vis Russia and are focused on broad strategic questions; the people are often to their left on security matters.

The poll is interesting, although I don't understand the way the author is using the word "left" here. Not wanting another nation to base expensive weapons in your backyard is "left"? What's wrong with the far clearer word "nationalist"?

[Zim]

Interesting, I had thought the people in Poland were for it.

In many countries there seems to be a trend to ascribe views to left or right that don't really fit in either. I wonder if it's the tendency in Anglophone countries to have only two major political parties.

[Sarmatian]

security from belligerant over-sized neighbours IS important to them.

Agreed, but that issue here is whether missile shield is the way to do it.

[Furunculus]

the missiles really didn't matter, what counted was that american soldiers become a trip-wire placed in front of any potential aggressor, which is precisely why poland insisted on american boots on the ground.

poland is quite familiar with defensive treaties whose provisions are not respected until it's too late, dead americans and destroyed strategic US facilities mean that Poland has confidence the treaty will be honoured.

[HoreTore]

the missiles really didn't matter, what counted was that american soldiers become a trip-wire placed in front of any potential aggressor, which is precisely why poland insisted on american boots on the ground.

poland is quite familiar with defensive treaties whose provisions are not respected until it's too late, dead americans and destroyed strategic US facilities mean that Poland has confidence the treaty will be honoured.

If Poland gets whacked, then they have noone but themselves to blame.

They should join the european integration like the rest of europe, including the balkans, is doing. Europe is what will provide Poland and the other eastern european states with security. But instead of contributing to a safer, peaceful europe, Poland does its best to increase hostilities and piss off everyone else.

And then they want the US to pay for all that and keep them safe. It's a good thing that the US has given them the finger, maybe they'll finally learn now. The people of Poland already know it, it should only be a matter of time before their leadership realizes that peace is preferable to bullying.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Leaving one or two allies in the lurch to appease a power which, quite frankly, has not been very friendly is not what I consider to be good diplomacy, but we'll see how it turns out.

[HoreTore]

Leaving one or two allies in the lurch to appease a power which, quite frankly, has not been very friendly is not what I consider to be good diplomacy, but we'll see how it turns out.

Leaving one or two allies?

Poland's problem is that they've left a dozen allies, the EU, and put all their eggs in one basket, the US. And just how smart is that? "Left" is an understatement too, they've used every opportunity they've had to increase hostilities and alienate themselves even further.

Instead of aiming for the US to provide their entire defence plan, they should aim for european integration, which will still mean that the US will be a close ally.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Leaving one or two allies?

Poland's problem is that they've left a dozen allies, the EU, and put all their eggs in one basket, the US. And just how smart is that? "Left" is an understatement too, they've used every opportunity they've had to increase hostilities and alienate themselves even further.

Instead of aiming for the US to provide their entire defence plan, they should aim for european integration, which will still mean that the US will be a close ally.

You're forgetting that I see European integration as fundamentally wrong. Military alliances with Europe are fine, but as has been said, Poland has had enough of unhonoured alliances. It is still in the European Union, and yet maintains stronger relations with the United States of America than much of the rest of the EU does. Far from putting all of their eggs in one basket, they've maximized them.

If they are attacked and Europe does nothing, America will (or would have), and vice versa.

[HoreTore]

You're forgetting that I see European integration as fundamentally wrong. Military alliances with Europe are fine, but as has been said, Poland has had enough of unhonoured alliances. It is still in the European Union, and yet maintains stronger relations with the United States of America than much of the rest of the EU does. Far from putting all of their eggs in one basket, they've maximized them.

If they are attacked and Europe does nothing, America will (or would have), and vice versa.

Forgetting that EMFM is anti-EU is like forgetting that water is wet :smash:

Yes, Poland is a member of the EU. Why they are a member is a mystery to me, as they're attacking the other european states at every opportunity, especially Germany.

Unless Poland changes their attitude and begins working towards peace and cooperation, I say let 'em rot.

[Brenus]

“dead Americans and destroyed strategic US facilities mean that Poland has confidence the treaty will be honoured” As the South Vietnam and Cambodia can give testimony…

“If they are attacked and Europe does nothing” Er, how?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yes, Poland is a member of the EU. Why they are a member is a mystery to meI can think of an annual 11 billion reasons why Poland wishes to be an EU member...

At any rate, the Polish nationalists have been defeated in elections nearly two years ago. The Polish centre is in power. Anti-German, anti-Russian, anti-European agitation* is mostly a thing of the past.

Only the Polish nationalists and those most peculiar allies of theirs, the British Conservative Party, believe anymore that ultra-nationalist agitation is the way forward for Poland.

*anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-minority, anti-Non Catholic etc etc. Anti-everything, in fact, except for George Bush, who is going to build them a big missile shield under which to hide!!1!



Excuse me? Not too long ago I was convinced that my countrymen are suffering from the strongest victim complex in Europe but I've got to admit that Poles take the cakeThe prize for top-3 three victim complex in Europe:

3 - The Serbians
2 - The Poles
1 - The UK Conservative Party.


Back when reason governed the UK Conservatives:
Malcolm Rifkink, former Conservative foreign secretary, about the Russian bear and the complementary workings of NATO and the EU to promote European safety:


[...]
But for the Europeans, including Britain, the weakening of Article 5 would require major increases in defence expenditure and force the British Government into a more substantial common European defence policy, probably under the EU. This would suit some, but the Conservative party, in particular, must be alert to this risk.

The alternative to Nato membership is not to throw Ukraine or Georgia to the Russian wolves. The main prize they should and can be offered is membership of the EU - bringing economic benefits and greatly increasing their political security. Finland, Austria and Sweden are no less secure from Russian aggression than Lithuania or Latvia, despite not being members of Nato.

In any event, in a real crisis, Nato is able to intervene with military force if it wishes to do so, even on behalf of non-members. This is what it did, rightly or wrongly, in Kosovo. The difference is that Nato had choice. It had no treaty obligation.

So Europe must be tough but also realistic with Russia. Putin - who remains the real power in the country - is no new Lenin waging ideological war. He is more like a 19th-century tsar trying to extend Russian power, like all tsars since Ivan the Terrible.

[Xiahou]

Obama still continues to lie (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090920/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_russia) about the reason for dropping the plan.

My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians," Obama told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview for broadcast Sunday.Seriously, does anyone believe that? The report that the administration was waving around only concluded that Iran's long-range missile program was 3-5 years behind schedule, not that it was of no concern. And even that NIE is suspect, considering Iran is already far enough along to put a satellite in orbit. The Aegis system is fine, but it's no reason to abandon long-range missile defense.

In other news, former Polish president and nobel prize winner, Lech Welesa has weighed (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0909/Walesa_blasts_Obama.html) in:

"Americans have always cared only about their interests, and all other [countries] have been used for their purposes. This is another example,” Mr Walesa told TVN24. “[Poles] need to review our view of America, we must first of all take care of our business,” he added.

“I could tell from what I saw, what kind of policies President Obama cultivates,” the former president added. “I simply don't like this policy, not because this shield was required [in Poland], but [because of] the way we were treated,” he concluded.

[gaelic cowboy]

The area they lost in WW2 was hardly inhabited by Poles, and Belorussian, Ukrainians and others that lived there weren't that much unhappy when the Red Army marched in. Poland was compensated after the war at the expanse of Germany but Poles still like to think how pre-ww2 Poland was this heaven on earth, democratic country that didn't persecute anyone and where everyone lived together in harmony.

Are you kidding seriously you are kidding right Stalin marches troops into Poland they massacred the officers at Katyn and tried to cover it up.

My brothers wifes grand uncle was hunted first by the nazi's and then rewarded with a spell down the mines by the soviets.

Your talking like they had it coming there country has been dismembered not just once but two or three time in last 150yrs you name someone he has tried to claim it.

The Belorussians and Ukrainians cheered for a bit of peace but what they got was a madman every bit as lunatic as Hitler.

I have said about twenty times now but I think I must say it again the missile shield is being abandoned in order to gain support against Iran.

Russian objections of its placement are rubbish of the highest order everyone on this forum is convinced including me it would never work and they knew it too.

The reason for the row is for other countries benefit and to make sure they cow down and to ensure that even a slight possibility of the reduction of Russia power is removed.

The Kremlin is afraid of a colour revolution thats the real reason for the row. Of course everyone here knows thats impossible there will not be any popular uprising storming the Kremlin this century but hey look at the type of people running things the ex KGB types etc they didnt get to where they are by not covering every eventuallity.

Every peice of Russian influence is bound up in three cards

1 nuclear weapons
2 oil and gas
3 instability in nearby regions which allows for the selling of weapons and transfer of technology

Any diminution of these will cause a degradation of Russian influence.

The surrounding of Russia will continue because it must the US and more specifically the EU must have access to oil and gas this is a requirment and cannot be relied on by Russia as they have already demonstrated they are willing to turn taps off.

Do you think any of those countries that were prised from its orbit where somehow just floating around there on there own or something. They most certainly were not were not they were vassals same as in Soviet days

Entry into the EU and NATO is good for these countries FACT

Pushing Russia into Chinese arms bah rubbish they have been selling them stuff for years long before this row.

They should just simply give up trying to face up to the US but they cannot because thats how there game is played the people who matter make money from all this and so these rows will continue.

You ask what has Russia done to earn emnity maybe it should read what have they done to earn trust.

Until the people running things are gone no change will happen I say again they are making money from this and they intend to prevent America and Europe getting around them to make money too.

Control of the Gas and Oil is control of Russia so every single thing that can be done will be done to ensure its price is kept high threats of turning off the Tap doing side deals with EU goverments for pipeline access will continue it all feeds back to this eventually.

Thankfully in 50 yrs time we will all be wondering what the fuss was about because time is not on Russia's side if they changed there tune soonish they might hang on to a good bit of what they have now but if they play this game too long it will backfire.

Russia lives beside all these countries it interferes with the US does not ergo the US can afford to slip up every once in a while but not the Kremlin.

[seireikhaan]

Obama still continues to lie (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090920/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_russia) about the reason for dropping the plan.
Seriously, does anyone believe that? The report that the administration was waving around only concluded that Iran's long-range missile program was 3-5 years behind schedule, not that it was of no concern. And even that NIE is suspect, considering Iran is already far enough along to put a satellite in orbit. The Aegis system is fine, but it's no reason to abandon long-range missile defense.

In its place will be a different missile-defense plan relying on a network of sensors and interceptor missiles based at sea, on land and in the air.
So we've scrapped a missile defense plan in favor of...

a different missile defense plan.

:coffeenews:

[Xiahou]

So we've scrapped a missile defense plan in favor of...

a different missile defense plan.

:coffeenews:Read my post again- this in particular:
The Aegis system is fine, but it's no reason to abandon long-range missile defense.The Aegis system is designed for in-theatre missile defence. Meaning short to medium range. The planned missiles in Poland were designed for long-range, as in ICBMs.

Both are valuable. Obama isn't replacing the proposed shield with Aegis, he's just flat out abandoning it. The Aegis system has it's roots in the Reagan administration with the SDI- which I believe someone else erroneously called a boondoggle. Before, we were working on both options, now we've dumped the long-range option in an attempt to appease the Russians.

[Tribesman]

considering Iran is already far enough along to put a satellite in orbit.
A rocket that can go up into space is very different from a rocket that can go up and come down again in the right place.
If Russia wanted to put an anti missile defence system in Cuba the same people who are complaining about the cancellaion of the polish base and saying there is nothing wrong with it would be screaming against the provocative plan and calling for action against cuba and russia.

[Furunculus]

I can think of an annual 11 billion reasons why Poland wishes to be an EU member...
At any rate, the Polish nationalists have been defeated in elections nearly two years ago. The Polish centre is in power. Anti-German, anti-Russian, anti-European agitation* is mostly a thing of the past.
Only the Polish nationalists and those most peculiar allies of theirs, the British Conservative Party, believe anymore that ultra-nationalist agitation is the way forward for Poland.
*anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-minority, anti-Non Catholic etc etc. Anti-everything, in fact, except for George Bush, who is going to build them a big missile shield under which to hide!!1!


The prize for top-3 three victim complex in Europe:
3 - The Serbians
2 - The Poles
1 - The UK Conservative Party.


you might not be snide if you came from a country that was in living lifetime carved up by like a turkey by neighbouring nations and then watched as 20% of its population was wiped out.

the cons don't have a victim complex, they just are not interested in unnecessarily divesting sovereignty to foriegn entities.

[Sarmatian]

Are you kidding seriously you are kidding right Stalin marches troops into Poland they massacred the officers at Katyn and tried to cover it up.
My brothers wifes grand uncle was hunted first by the nazi's and then rewarded with a spell down the mines by the soviets.
And my brothers wifes grandfathers mothers uncles daughters ex roommate is a real scumbag, what can I say...

Your talking like they had it coming there country has been dismembered not just once but two or three time in last 150yrs you name someone he has tried to claim it.
Austrian empire was dismembered by France, UK and US and yet Austria today actually cooperates with those countries... Go figure...

Russian objections of its placement are rubbish of the highest order everyone on this forum is convinced including me it would never work and they knew it too.
Maybe you should organize a petition on the .org and send it to Putin and Medvedev :laugh4:

We, the Orgahs, strongly object to your insistence that missile shield is a danger to Russia blah, blah... blah, blah, blah.... would you just understand that you should shut up and do as you're told.

Sincerely yours....


The Kremlin is afraid of a colour revolution thats the real reason for the row. Of course everyone here knows thats impossible there will not be any popular uprising storming the Kremlin this century but hey look at the type of people running things the ex KGB types etc they didnt get to where they are by not covering every eventuallity.
Oh, yeah, colour revolutions... Smart... Support for leaders of the colour revolutions range from 5-15% nowadays.

The surrounding of Russia will continue because it must the US and more specifically the EU must have access to oil and gas this is a requirment and cannot be relied on by Russia as they have already demonstrated they are willing to turn taps off.

Freakin' bastards, they actually want to get paid for their gas. How dare they!?

Do you think any of those countries that were prised from its orbit where somehow just floating around there on there own or something. They most certainly were not were not they were vassals same as in Soviet days
?
I don't get this.

Entry into the EU and NATO is good for these countries FACT
Debatable...

Pushing Russia into Chinese arms bah rubbish they have been selling them stuff for years long before this row.
Selling stuff isn't the same as being closest political and military allies.

You ask what has Russia done to earn emnity maybe it should read what have they done to earn trust.
There's trust to be earned on both sides, you know. It takes a long time, it doesn't happen instantly. It involves a lot of small steps by both sides. So far, Russia has made a lot more steps.

Until the people running things are gone no change will happen I say again they are making money from this and they intend to prevent America and Europe getting around them to make money too.
By selling their energy and resources to Europe they're preventing America and Europe to make money???

Control of the Gas and Oil is control of Russia so every single thing that can be done will be done to ensure its price is kept high threats of turning off the Tap doing side deals with EU goverments for pipeline access will continue it all feeds back to this eventually.

Oh, yeah, the reason for turning the taps off was to show the EU who's boss :dizzy2:

Do you bother to inform yourself about an issue before you speak about it???

Fact 1 - during he soviet era, not once were energy supplies cut off from the western Europe, even during the most serious crises.
Fact 2 - Ukraine syphoned gas, which is extremely dangerous as there has to be enough gas to keep the pressure in the system. That's called technical gas. If there isn't enough, entire system may collapse.
Fact 3 - Ukraine didn't pay for that gas and was already running a big debt they couldn't cover.
Fact 4 - Big, rich western European countries (France, Germany...) have gas storages. In those storages they have more than enough gas for the entire country for one winter, not just a couple of weeks.
Fact 5 - Smaller, poorer countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia...) don't have that. So, by turning off gas, they've hurt smaller countries, not the big ones as russophobes like to think.
Fact 6 - There's different prices for gas depending on the season. In winter, gas is more expensive. It's in Russian interest to sell more gas in winter.
Fact 7 - Russia makes huge amounts of money by selling energy and resources to the west. It's in their interest to keep selling.

Now, you may choose to ignore all this and cry "Russia is teh evil empire!", with Darth Vader music in the background.

[HoreTore]

Obama still continues to lie about the reason for dropping the plan.

So?

At least his lies are believable, unlike the outright lies of his opponents.

And hey, maybe it's true that he didn't do this to please Russia? Considering that every single one of his important allies are happy about this decision, perhaps he did it to make his allies happy?

[Lemur]

Obama still continues to lie (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090920/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_russia) about the reason for dropping the plan.
If we read the second half of the quote from your link:


"My task here was not to negotiate with the Russians," Obama told CBS' "Face the Nation" in an interview for broadcast Sunday. "The Russians don't make determinations about what our defense posture is."

Seems reasonable, if you don't assume from the get-go that the President of the United States is a lying traitor who wants to sell America to the Muslins. SecDef says, again, in your article:


Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted that the United States is not walking away from European allies to appease Russia.

"Russia's attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue," Gates wrote in an essay in The New York Times. He said he would be surprised if Russia likes the replacement European missile defense plan much better.

[Husar]

There are, also, other, missile, defense, systems, in, development, for, example, a, big, laser, in, a, big, aeroplane.
Aegis is not the only system in development.

Tribesman also had a great point. :laugh4:

If you want your silly missile defense, Xiahou, then build it in your own territory but NIMBY!
Oh wait, it doesn't work at all then. :laugh4:

[seireikhaan]

Read my post again- this in particular:The Aegis system is designed for in-theatre missile defence. Meaning short to medium range. The planned missiles in Poland were designed for long-range, as in ICBMs.

Both are valuable. Obama isn't replacing the proposed shield with Aegis, he's just flat out abandoning it. The Aegis system has it's roots in the Reagan administration with the SDI- which I believe someone else erroneously called a boondoggle. Before, we were working on both options, now we've dumped the long-range option in an attempt to appease the Russians.
1) I dunno, I personally would say that Gates (http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/09/20/obama-gates-defend-move-to-scrap-bush-missile-shield/) is probably the one I'd be listening to over people not actually in the know.

We are strengthening – not scrapping – missile defense in Europe,” Gates wrote, noting that the previous program would not have been operational until at least 2017 at the earliest and insisted the shift provided “greater flexibility to adapt as new threats develop and old ones recede.”

2) We already have troops in (http://www.rightsided.org/index.php/2004/08/us-troops-in-polandbloggerblogger/) Poland, so its not as though we can't claim retaliation, as was claimed by Furunculus else here earlier in the thread.

3) Poland and the Czech Republic are already in NATO. In other words, Russia won't touch them(militarily, energy being a different deal altogether).

Personally, I feel the whole issue is entirely overblown. And its really irritating to see so many words put into the mouth of others and so many people thinking they know a durned bit more than the Secretary of Defense.

[Furunculus]

Personally, I feel the whole issue is entirely overblown. And its really irritating to see so many words put into the mouth of others and so many people thinking they know a durned bit more than the Secretary of Defense.

3) Poland and the Czech Republic are already in NATO. In other words, Russia won't touch them(militarily, energy being a different deal altogether).

2) We already have troops in (http://www.rightsided.org/index.php/2004/08/us-troops-in-polandbloggerblogger/) Poland, so its not as though we can't claim retaliation, as was claimed by Furunculus else here earlier in the thread.


i have made no claims of the technical competence of this system or the postulated replacement, nor too have i commented on the strategic implications of US security resulting from the change, i have merely pointed out the Polish point of view:

3) defence alliances are all very well, but having lost 20% of their population only 70 years ago because their allies didn't make good on the agreement in time, they remain wary of glib promises from fair weather friends.

2) destroying a strategic missile defense system would be tantamount to declaring an imminent first strike was about to launch, and one should be very wary of giving the slightest inclination of such an act. that represents real security for poland.

this was why Poland wanted the ABM system along with a permanent garrison of US troops manning it.

[Strike For The South]

Why would we even bother putting this in Poland? Russia isn't pressing the button anytime soon and Poland is about as useful as a Jalapeno in July.

So if not putting thus here saves us money and gives us some poltical capitial with the Russians I'm all for it.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So if not putting thus here saves us money and gives us some poltical capitial with the Russians I'm all for it.And to top it all off, you've given the Polish nationalists teh boot too! :2thumbsup:


(...but I wouldn't get my hopes up for political capital with the Russians. Moscow sees this as a 'correction' of American mistakes. And as a reward for Moscow's sabre-rattling several hours after Obama won the Democratic nomination)


Edit: and teh boot for the Tories. :tongue:

[Xiahou]

1) I dunno, I personally would say that Gates (http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/09/20/obama-gates-defend-move-to-scrap-bush-missile-shield/) is probably the one I'd be listening to over people not actually in the know.Was he also the voice of authority when he said that we needed it when he served Bush? Or a better question- If I had offered a quote of Rumsfeld defending a Bush decision, would you have found it compelling? The Secretary of Defense is a political appointee- it's his job to back his boss's policy.

Besides, what is there to be in the know about? The NIE has been leaked (http://www.ohio.com/news/nation/59821067.html) all over the place....

President Barack Obama's decision to scrap a Bush-era missile intercept system in Europe was based largely on a new U.S. intelligence assessment that Iran's effort to build a nuclear-capable long-range missile would take three years to five years longer than originally thought, officials said.
-snip-
The new assessment contends that Iran is unlikely to have a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile until 2015 to 2020, a U.S. government official familiar with the report told the Associated Press. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the report remains classified.The original estimate was 2012- the same year that the system in Poland was to be fully deployed.

All of the arrangements had already been made. Who does it benefit to back out now?


If you want your silly missile defense, Xiahou, then build it in your own territory but NIMBY!
Oh wait, it doesn't work at all then. :laugh4:When will you Germans learn? Poland isn't your backyard. It hasn't been for a long time now. :wink:

We already have the missile shield deployed in our own territory- it's called Alaska. :yes:

[gaelic cowboy]

And my brothers wifes grandfathers mothers uncles daughters ex roommate is a real scumbag, what can I say...

You could start by admitting that was a stupid statement about WW2 it was both insensitive and irrelevant to the discussion.


Austrian empire was dismembered by France, UK and US and yet Austria today actually cooperates with those countries... Go figure...

Easy to figure they launched a war against Serbia and started WW1 and after WW2 they were forced to be democratic and leave fascism behind finally Soviet tensions welded them firmly into the West.


Maybe you should organize a petition on the .org and send it to Putin and Medvedev :laugh4:

We, the Orgahs, strongly object to your insistence that missile shield is a danger to Russia blah, blah... blah, blah, blah.... would you just understand that you should shut up and do as you're told.

Sincerely yours....


Yeah whatever


Oh, yeah, colour revolutions... Smart... Support for leaders of the colour revolutions range from 5-15% nowadays.

I didn't say that it was going to happen it is not I meant only they are making sure it never can happen.


Freakin' bastards, they actually want to get paid for their gas. How dare they!?

Instability puts the price up you know thats a fact even a sniff of war sends oil prices up.


?

I don't get this.

Yes Russia was some kindly Uncle who got stabbed in the back :laugh4: Russian influence is by no means without strings no more than American influence but at least people can burn effigies of American presidents and there own political leaders on our side of the line try and burn an effigy of Putin see how far you get in Russia.


Debatable...

Check the standard of life of someone outside the EU in the Russian controlled area between formerly controlled areas now in the EU no comparison.


Selling stuff isn't the same as being closest political and military allies.

What are you on about selling stuff to everybody is what they do and is always there strategic objective because its a big money spinner. They will never be our allies because that would require Russia not to sell weapons to Americas enemies like Iran, Syria, N.Korea etc etc


There's trust to be earned on both sides, you know. It takes a long time, it doesn't happen instantly. It involves a lot of small steps by both sides. So far, Russia has made a lot more steps.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Russia should be rewarded for doing the proper thing I see:dizzy2: they are like a puppy who wees on the carpet and instead of being put outside the house for punishment you want to give them more pedigree chum.

They have plenty more steps to go yet boy were waiting for them not the other way round.


By selling their energy and resources to Europe they're preventing America and Europe to make money???

Why would they let them ally with former soviet areas where oil and gas deposits are located they could find there gas worth less tomorrow if they did.


Oh, yeah, the reason for turning the taps off was to show the EU who's boss :dizzy2:

Correct if you cant see it fine doesn't change it


Do you bother to inform yourself about an issue before you speak about it???

Yes I do but your intent on wearing me down with rubbish about how if only we would cast off America we could all sit around strum guitars and swap campfire songs and have a lovely old time together.


Fact 1 - during he soviet era, not once were energy supplies cut off from the western Europe, even during the most serious crises.

Because US/Europe had more leverage on the Soviets through grain supply plus the real possibility of war kept both sane enough to not stop trade for energy on one side and cereals on the other etc. Whenever goods cannot cross a frontier it generally follows that tanks will.


Fact 2 - Ukraine syphoned gas, which is extremely dangerous as there has to be enough gas to keep the pressure in the system. That's called technical gas. If there isn't enough, entire system may collapse.
Fact 3 - Ukraine didn't pay for that gas and was already running a big debt they couldn't cover.

Which is why there was such a fuss but turning off the gas was not a technical issue not in the middle of a dispute with the Ukraine on the price they should pay.



Fact 4 - Big, rich western European countries (France, Germany...) have gas storages. In those storages they have more than enough gas for the entire country for one winter, not just a couple of weeks.

Rubbish winter lasts longer than a few weeks in northern europe and that pipe has to go a long way.


Fact 5 - Smaller, poorer countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia...) don't have that. So, by turning off gas, they've hurt smaller countries, not the big ones as russophobes like to think.

Of course they calculated they could get away with it for a few days maybe a week enough to remind the small countries who is boss while driving the price up which would annoy the richer economies.


Fact 6 - There's different prices for gas depending on the season. In winter, gas is more expensive. It's in Russian interest to sell more gas in winter.

It's in the Russian interest to lock people into short to medium contracts no one buys gas on the day they need it otherwise it will not be there to be sold to them every utility company buys gas for say a specific period of time in order to ensure supply for the future.


Fact 7 - Russia makes huge amounts of money by selling energy and resources to the west. It's in their interest to keep selling.

It is in their interest to keep the price high which is not the same as selling the companies will continue to come to the door not Russia coming to us begging to buy.


Now, you may choose to ignore all this and cry "Russia is teh evil empire!", with Darth Vader music in the background.

Russia may not be Soviet but its not a reliable partner by any stretch of the imagination and no sane person would rely on their good will towards all in any area where Russian strategic interest conflicts with your own whoever you are.

[Sarmatian]

You could start by admitting that was a stupid statement about WW2 it was both insensitive and irrelevant to the discussion.

Nope, it was a perfectly good response to what Furunculus said. Poland isn't the only country that suffered dismemberment, big loss of population, atrocities etc... In fact, all that was pretty common in Europe at the time and I don't see why Poland should get special treatment. Also, Polish nationalists very much like to emphasize their victim status, how they were attacked and/or betrayed by Germany, Russia/USSR, UK, France etc... whenever they don't get their wish. In the minds of those people, half of European countries should spend next two centuries apologizing to Poland for all the wrongs they've done all the while they conveniently forgett their own blunders, like early deals with Hitler, taking land from Czechoslovakia, oppression of people of different ethnicity or religion and so on...


Easy to figure they launched a war against Serbia and started WW1 and after WW2 they were forced to be democratic and leave fascism behind finally Soviet tensions welded them firmly into the West.


So, obviously, it can be done.



I didn't say that it was going to happen
Wonder why...


Instability puts the price up you know thats a fact even a sniff of war sends oil prices up.

It's was pretty much the same price all the time during South Ossetian crisis. If you're talking about larger Russian-Western conflict, then the price won't matter because gas wouldn't be sold, especially since it is a strategic resource.


Yes Russia was some kindly Uncle who got stabbed in the back :laugh4: Russian influence is by no means without strings no more than American influence but at least people can burn effigies of American presidents and there own political leaders on our side of the line try and burn an effigy of Putin see how far you get in Russia.

I'm definitely trying that. I just have to go to Russia first, obviously.


Check the standard of life of someone outside the EU in the Russian controlled area between formerly controlled areas now in the EU no comparison.

Yep, but those countries have very fragile economies and are very much dependent on the west for economic aid and they usually have enormous debts. A good chunk of that standard of life is based on continuous loans. Hungary's debt is now larger than their GDP. Limited industry and highly developed banking institutions generally lead to small production and big consumption. That's why those countries were severely hit by the crisis. Baltic states had their GDP plummet down 15-20% in just one year.


Why would they let them ally with former soviet areas where oil and gas deposits are located they could find there gas worth less tomorrow if they did.

Because those countries that have gas have also good relations with Russia, who pays world market price for their gas and is their most important trading and economic partner in general, not to mention scientific and cultural links. No need to scrape the pipelines and build new one so that they could sell gas to Europe for the same price. But it isn't forbidden, of course. Nabucco was (is) planned based on gas from some former soviet republics, no one in Russia yelled "war".


Yes I do but your intent on wearing me down with rubbish about how if only we would cast off America we could all sit around strum guitars and swap campfire songs and have a lovely old time together.

Sorry, I'll be more mindful in the future :laugh4:


Because US/Europe had more leverage on the Soviets through grain supply plus the real possibility of war kept both sane enough to not stop trade for energy on one side and cereals on the other etc. Whenever goods cannot cross a frontier it generally follows that tanks will.

Check wheat and potato crops figures for Soviet Union. It was in top 5 or top 3 (can't remember from the top of my head) in the world for both. Ukraine isn't called "the bread basket of Europe" for nothing.


Which is why there was such a fuss but turning off the gas was not a technical issue not in the middle of a dispute with the Ukraine on the price they should pay.

No, it started with you Ukraine not paying. Then Russia said, ok you won't get the gas but the gas for Europe will still be flowing, as those are two separate contracts. Ukraine starts syphoning gas, Russia turns off the tap.



Rubbish winter lasts longer than a few weeks in northern europe and that pipe has to go a long way.

Check how much gas Germany and France can storage and get back to me. I'm not sure about Scandinavian countries but I do think they don't rely nearly that much on Russia for energy. Germany is by far Russia's most important trading partner when it comes to energy, followed by France and Italy, iirc.


Of course they calculated they could get away with it for a few days maybe a week enough to remind the small countries who is boss while driving the price up which would annoy the richer economies.

And how much did the price go up in that period?


It's in the Russian interest to lock people into short to medium contracts no one buys gas on the day they need it otherwise it will not be there to be sold to them every utility company buys gas for say a specific period of time in order to ensure supply for the future.

Depends on the country. Developed countries which have the capacity to store gas buy usually the same amount through the whole year, so that they would get the lower price. Poorer countries, like Serbia, buy more in winter but so far the Ruskies have been friendly and charged the same price. Don't know if they have the same routine with other countries.


It is in their interest to keep the price high which is not the same as selling the companies will continue to come to the door not Russia coming to us begging to buy.


It's a symbiotic relationship. Europe needs energy, Russia needs someone to buy their excess energy.
When Napoleon persuaded Alexander to join in the continental blockaded of Britain, Russia very quicly realized that it actually loses money and broke off the deal with Napoleon.


Russia may not be Soviet but its not a reliable partner by any stretch of the imagination and no sane person would rely on their good will towards all in any area where Russian strategic interest conflicts with your own whoever you are.

That's true for any great power, trust me, you don't ever want to be on the wrong side of American interests.

Anyway, we've drifted to much off topic and it's getting pointless. To sum it up - Yes, there are conflicts of interests between Russia and the West but there are also great possibilities for cooperation. There's no ideological barrier any more and I believe it is in the interest of both West and Russia to have best possible relations. I don't buy the "can't be done" routine. We've believed that many things couldn't be done and yet they were done. Imagine that someone in Europe in 1945 said that after centuries of war, (after two especially devastating wars in the previous decades) that just a few decades after, Europe would be mostly united and that France and Germany together would form the basis for that. France and Germany who waged three devastating war just between 1871 and 1945. I believe that idea of united Europe was far more ludicrous back then than the idea of good relations between Russia and the West is now and I don't see why I should back away from that line of thought because some idiots on both sides want to compensate for their penis size by showing what big guns they have.

So, thanks for the discussion and all the best.

[Furunculus]

Nope, it was a perfectly good response to what Furunculus said. Poland isn't the only country that suffered dismemberment, big loss of population, atrocities etc... In fact, all that was pretty common in Europe at the time and I don't see why Poland should get special treatment. Also, Polish nationalists very much like to emphasize their victim status, how they were attacked and/or betrayed by Germany, Russia/USSR, UK, France etc... whenever they don't get their wish. In the minds of those people, half of European countries should spend next two centuries apologizing to Poland for all the wrongs they've done all the while they conveniently forgett their own blunders, like early deals with Hitler, taking land from Czechoslovakia, oppression of people of different ethnicity or religion and so on...





i'm just responding as a brit who didn't lose 20% of his fellow citizens and have his country destroyed.

and providing an explanation for why the Poles may value that ABM site.

[Sarmatian]

i'm just responding as a brit who didn't lose 20% of his fellow citizens and have his country destroyed.

and providing an explanation for why the Poles may value that ABM site.

And I'm responding as a Serb who lost 20% of his fellow citizens, had his country destroyed and dismembered, divided between Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and fascist Croatia. If you follow that reasoning, I should have a better perspective than you.

But the big point hear is that most of the Poles weren't too happy about that shield in first place and they're quite content that it has been scraped. Nationalist nutjobs of whom I spoke are a different issue all together...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

But the big point hear is that most of the Poles weren't too happy about that shield in first place and they're quite content that it has been scraped. Nationalist nutjobs of whom I spoke are a different issue all together...

Apparently, however, the Polish government is not happy at all. Secretary Clinton's "but we still love you" call went unanswered.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Apparently, however, the Polish government is not happy at all. Secretary Clinton's "but we still love you" call went unanswered.Oh dear. Not a rift between the US and 'New Europe'? Goodness!

I dare not utter the words, but does this imply the love didn't last long? Ever so sorry about that! But let's not dwell on the past. Ancient history. We must move on:


Visit by senior French diplomat


The Secretary of State for European Affairs# at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Pierre Lellouche, is paying a working visit to Poland on September 18 at the invitation of#Foreign Minister Rados?aw Sikorski.

The talks will focus on the European Neighborhood Policy, including the Union’s relations with Russia and Ukraine, migration issues, EU enlargement, including relations with Turkey, the European Security and Defense Policy,#Afghanistan and selected aspects of military, civilian and energy security.

Pierre Lellouche visits Poland as part of a study tour of Union countries in connection with his assumption on June 23 of the post of Secretary of State for European Affairs.:sweatdrop:

[Tribesman]

The original estimate was 2012- the same year that the system in Poland was to be fully deployed.

So what ? The Patriot was planned in the 60s for deployment in the 70s, it got there in the 80s, was changed in the 90s and only really became effective this century.

Come to think of it perhaps thats the thinking behind the deal, after all it was only when the Israelis went to actually use them for real that they discovered the problems and complained to the manufacturers that the software was crap.
Maybe the deal with Poland was for Poland to eventually discover the missiles were crap so that way the defence industry gets a free field test.

[Meneldil]

A rocket that can go up into space is very different from a rocket that can go up and come down again in the right place.
If Russia wanted to put an anti missile defence system in Cuba the same people who are complaining about the cancellaion of the polish base and saying there is nothing wrong with it would be screaming against the provocative plan and calling for action against cuba and russia.

This. It simply comess down to this, and nothing else.

Had Russia decided to help any latin american country setting up a missile base, the US would have gone 'ZOMG IT'S WAR!!'. But when it's the other way around, it's a 'fine diplomatic move'.

Bollox.

The same can also be said about Iran. Lots of countries buy and get missiles and weapons to supposedly protect themselves while they ain't facing any serious threat (*cough* Israel *cough* Lybia), and it's okay: we make deals, offer them technology and what not. Iran, surrounded by ennemies, and threatened by the world sole superpower (who also happens to be quite a bully) is 'threatening world order' when it tries to prevent any invasion of its territory.

Lack of understanding of international relations + lack of perspective and objectivity = fail.

As for Poland, I say good riddance. Maybe they'll stop bitching about anyone else and try to actually build a real, functionning country.

I also agree with Sarmatian that NATO, the US (and the EU to a lesser degree) are not doing anything to let Russia join the club of democratic & peaceful countries. The US administration never stopped to consider Russia as a threat, despite the fall of USSR. What I fear is that Russia now feels excluded for good and doesn't really want to become part of 'the West' anymore.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Bollox.

No, politics.

[Tribesman]

No, politics.

Politics is bollox

[Xiahou]

This. It simply comess down to this, and nothing else.

Had Russia decided to help any latin american country setting up a missile base, the US would have gone 'ZOMG IT'S WAR!!'. But when it's the other way around, it's a 'fine diplomatic move'
It'd be pointless on a couple of levels for Russia to setup a missile shield in Latin America. Aside from the US, I'm not aware of any nuclear armed nation or even one that's developing them in the region. A missile shield would be just as useless against the US as it would be against the Russians, so I don't know what there would be to get upset about. On the other hand, Russia is selling (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/12/venezuela.chavez.home/index.html) other weapons to Latin American countries and no 'ZOMG' yet. ~:handball:
"By the way, we signed some military agreements with Russia. Well ... soon will arrive some little rockets," Chavez said. "We are not going to attack anyone. ... Those are only defense instruments because we are going to defend the nation, from any threat, from wherever it comes."

[HoreTore]

It'd be pointless on a couple of levels for Russia to setup a missile shield in Latin America. Aside from the US, I'm not aware of any nuclear armed nation or even one that's developing them in the region. A missile shield would be just as useless against the US as it would be against the Russians, so I don't know what there would be to get upset about. On the other hand, Russia is selling (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/09/12/venezuela.chavez.home/index.html) other weapons to Latin American countries and no 'ZOMG' yet. ~:handball:

Uhm.......

When, exactly, did the US stop caring about mr. Chavez' arsenal and his suppliers...?

EDIT: Also, I think I remember something about some missiles on some caribbean island that washington was rather unhappy about....

[Xiahou]

Uhm.......

When, exactly, did the US stop caring about mr. Chavez' arsenal and his suppliers...?
Wake me when it gets to Defcon: ZOMG ITS WAR!
:sleeping:

[drone]

EDIT: Also, I think I remember something about some missiles on some caribbean island that washington was rather unhappy about....

Missiles, yes. Missile shield, no. Russians planting a missile shield in Latin America would not bother us one bit. Our ICBMs fly north over the polar cap to their targets. :yes:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

EDIT: Also, I think I remember something about some missiles on some caribbean island that washington was rather unhappy about....

Nuclear missiles at the height of the Cold War vs. missile shield in Poland.

I see no difference.

[Brenus]

“Russians planting a missile shield in Latin America would not bother us one bit.” No. But Russian implementing a missile shield after having planting missile launcher in another part of South America would…:beam:

[drone]

“Russians planting a missile shield in Latin America would not bother us one bit.” No. But Russian implementing a missile shield after having planting missile launcher in another part of South America would…:beam:

Meh, not really. In the grand scheme of MAD, the missile shield would not be protecting the controllers of those missiles.

[Meneldil]

Russians planting a missile shield in Latin America would not bother us one bit.

Right. We do believe you.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Politics is bollox

Kind of sums up the thread for me. I have no idea how much I would have to learn before I could have a real opinion on the missile shield.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Russians planting a missile shield in Latin America would not bother us one bit. Our ICBMs fly north over the polar cap to their targets. :yes:
Hehe, joke of the month :laugh4:. :thumbsdown:

To the contrary of the stereotypes, a common Russian is much less nationalistic in one sense than an American. Many Russian are resigned or even ashamed of their country, as we have a fair load of problems. Our nationalism is one of aspiration and not action. American traditional Republicans and even the moderates to certain degree, are the most nationalistic people I have ever met in all my years of travelling throughout Europe. They would never accept a missile shield, despite its defensive nature. Americans are used to having control over their double-continent. The Russian people, on the other hand, did not care much about the missile shield - I live in Russia during the summers (usually) and I would know. The government throws fits, of course - it is their job, but the people are not overtly concerned with it.

YES, I KNOW I AM GENERALISING. ANYTIME WHEN ONE SPEAKS OF AN ENTIRE NATIONS, GENERALISATIONS ARE A MUST. Just making sure :yes:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Hehe, joke of the month :laugh4:. :thumbsdown:

To the contrary of the stereotypes, a common Russian is much less nationalistic in one sense than an American. Many Russian are resigned or even ashamed of their country, as we have a fair load of problems. Our nationalism is one of aspiration and not action. American traditional Republicans and even the moderates to certain degree, are the most nationalistic people I have ever met in all my years of travelling throughout Europe. They would never accept a missile shield, despite its defensive nature. Americans are used to having control over their double-continent. The Russian people, on the other hand, did not care much about the missile shield - I live in Russia during the summers (usually) and I would know. The government throws fits, of course - it is their job, but the people are not overtly concerned with it.


Seems like an unwarranted generalization to me :no:

[Aemilius Paulus]

Seems like an unwarranted generalization to me :no:
:wall:
Why so? Have you lived in both nations? I understand your scepticism, but this is fairly simple and basic stuff.

Russians are normally rather quite pessimistic about their country. Not just like in US, grumbling about inefficiency and lobbies, but far worse. The reason why Putin is so popular (70-80% approval ratings) is because Russian people have very low expectations of the gov't. And Putin is overshooting the low expectations by a mile. This, you can read in any magazine, journal, think-tank publication, etc.

Never have I heard anything remotely similar to the "our country is the greatest on Earth" rant that is not only commonplace, but actually almost universally and (until about now) unquestionably believed in US. Even now, basically no-one challenges this idea of American superiority over all nations in USofA. Sure, some radical liberals, but how many of those are there? And they do not all share it.

[Strike For The South]

:wall:
Why so? Have you lived in both nations? I understand your scepticism, but this is fairly simple and basic stuff.

Russians are normally rather quite pessimistic about their country. Not just like in US, grumbling about inefficiency and lobbies, but far worse. The reason why Putin is so popular (70-80% approval ratings) is because Russian people have very low expectations of the gov't. And Putin is overshooting the low expectations by a mile. This, you can read in any magazine, journal, think-tank publication, etc.

Never have I heard anything remotely similar to the "our country is the greatest on Earth" rant that is not only commonplace, but actually almost universally and (until about now) unquestionably believed. Even now, basically no-one challenges this idea of American superiority over all nations. Sure, some radical liberals, but how many of those are there? And they do not all share it.

That's what happens when you lose the cold war.

AMERICA-1
russkies-0

[Tellos Athenaios]

No it's a way of life. I heard it exemplified thus: “In Russia a pessimist is an optimist.” It inspires some awesome literature though.

[Aemilius Paulus]

That's what happens when you lose the cold war.

AMERICA-1
russkies-0
...

I know you are not fully serious, but not fully joking either. Whatever. If I wish to argue politics, I will do it elsewhere. Honestly, it is not normally a wise idea to debate cold war with an American, especially a Southern conservative non-history one, because you were the opponents obviously, and it makes no sense to do that, as it will not result well on both sides.:shrug: If you already have a Russian, which is a clear bias, then why add more bias??

[Husar]

I think SFTS just wanted to prove your point. :laugh4:

[Strike For The South]

...

I know you are not fully serious, but not fully joking either. Whatever. If I wish to argue politics, I will do it elsewhere. Honestly, it is not normally a wise idea to debate cold war with an American, especially a Southern conservative non-history one, because you were the opponents obviously, and it makes no sense to do that, as it will not result well on both sides.:shrug: If you already have a Russian, which is a clear bias, then why add more bias??


https://img9.imageshack.us/img9/2734/reaganatdurenbergerrall.th.jpg (https://img9.imageshack.us/i/reaganatdurenbergerrall.jpg/)

[LittleGrizzly]

Im sure most of the excess patriotism comes from being a superpower... I would assume most brits or at least the english were terribly patriotic going back about 100 years or more...

I don't know if I would call the cold war a loss for Russia... it certianly went better for America but I suppose it depends what you call a loss, some people consider USA not to have lost in Vietnam for example...

I think abandoning the shield is a good idea... theres no need to antagonise Russia.. plus point in my book for Obama...

[Don Corleone]

I believe the original intent of the missile shield was to discourage Iran from developing mid and long range missiles... the idea being they'll be useless before they'd get them done. Personally, I believe Iran already has their long range delivery mechanism: a low-level Hizbollah grunt in the US or Europe on an education visa and a rented van. So, looking at it that way, the proposed European missile shield was a big waste of time.

It's secondary purpose was to put American outposts between Moscow and Wasraw/Prague. I think the Poles & the Czechs seriously overestimated America's ability to look the other way when our blood gets shed, even when the aggressor is relatively addresable. We certainly didn't cause any trouble when the USS Cole & 2 of our embassies got bombed.

All in all, I'm not trying to make the argument for keeping the missile shield. I'm making an argument that bending over and asking Putin to be gentle, which lets face it, that's how Obama acted, was a farce tha will only serve to embolden Russian aggression. If he wanted to discontinue the missile shield, there's a dozen ways he could have done it without licking Putin's boots in the process.

Sarmation, you're clearly on a "Russia does no wrong" kick. I can't address that with the limited time I have on the org these days, but if you can claim that Russia has shown no signs of aggression to the outside world since 1989 with a straight face, I don't think there's much worthwhile I could say to you anyway.

As for the Russians putting a defense shield in Cuba.... (and the Cuban missile crisis).... Kennedy responded to the installation of short & medium range Russian nuclear missles that Kruschev had already declared he intended to use against us. Not so sure that's an apples-to-apples comparison, but as the point that was trying to be made was sovereignty in sphere of interest.... answer me this...

If the US is just a bunch of jingoistic, hateful cowboys running around hypocritcally screwing with Russia while demanding a different standard in our backyard, why are we allowing Putin to sell nuclear technology (including enrichment capability) to Chavez (who in quasi-Kruschev style) has implied his intent to use it against us.

If anything, there's a paranoid streak in me that thinks there's hawks in the Pentagon that welcome that particular development... Popping a zit is the euphimism they use for it, I believe.

[gaelic cowboy]

If anything, there's a paranoid streak in me that thinks there's hawks in the Pentagon that welcome that particular development... Popping a zit is the euphimism they use for it, I believe.

Truly scary prospect that but then it would be great to get the old fake economy going again eh.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I believe the original intent of the missile shield was to discourage Iran from developing mid and long range missiles...
Why so? It seems farcical that the US government had the nerve to suggest such thing and the composition to retain a straight face while doing so. Why in Lord's name would one surround Russia with countermeasures when Iran is the supposed potential aggressor. Who would seriously believe US, I mean I never heard a greater lie that people believe in than the claim that Amis are protecting themselves against Iran by putting missiles nowhere close to either Iran or to Us, but right next to Russia.

Really. US could have easily installed those stems in Iraq, Israel would be delighted to station them, and Turkey already did station defences before they were secretly taken down in exchange for the Soviets doing the same in Cuba. Considering the distance of Poland and Czech Republic from Iran, dozens of other countries could have based those anti-missiles as well, such as other NATO entities.

I am honestly shocked anyone believes the ballyhoo US is spewing for questionable purposes. I suppose it is just politics - you lie even everyone know that you are. The elephant in the room perhaps... Except that the general populace normally never takes note of the elephant which is apparent to any politician.


It's secondary purpose was to put American outposts between Moscow and Wasraw/Prague.
I do believe Poland already had US military bases. And both are NATO countries, who have nothing to gain, but much to lose from increased US presence. Those anti-missile installations will never protect Poland from anything, and in the case of a hypothetical all-out war, they are useless. Furthermore, since Poland and Czezh Republic are EU and NATO sates, Russia would be out of her mind to attack them, unless we wish a WWIII which we will undoubtedly lose. One cannot claim those installations are a nominal deterrence. Georgia was not a NATO member, nor a EU one. NATO was not obligated by any formal treaty to help them, especially when any direct help would be an act of war against Russia.


I'm making an argument that bending over and asking Putin to be gentle, which lets face it, that's how Obama acted, was a farce tha will only serve to embolden Russian aggression. If he wanted to discontinue the missile shield, there's a dozen ways he could have done it without licking Putin's boots in the process.
You bring an interesting point. But I do not see how it could be done any other way. Perhaps you could enlighten me? (No, I am not sarcastic, I am truly curious). Even if it was conceding to Russia, then that is what any nations has to do. No-one, not even America can always have their way, always brute force through opposition, always disregard other nations. Being a tough guy gets nation to nowhere but war or other forms of volatility. Obama could use a more amicable Russia to keep Iran in check, as it is partially in our interests as well to contain nuclear proliferation. You certainly did not see Russia cheering about the DPRK atomics.

Quite honestly, despite that fact that Obama's "softer" politics incense Republicans, I am appalled to witness to just what degree American Republicans are chauvinistic. I mean, do you ever back down or no? Does US need another George Bush to alienate the allies? Hell, I liked Bush to a certain degree, but his relations with the world were in shambles. At least he could have pleased the rest of the NATO and EU more...


Sarmation, you're clearly on a "Russia does no wrong" kick. I can't address that with the limited time I have on the org these days, but if you can claim that Russia has shown no signs of aggression to the outside world since 1989 with a straight face, I don't think there's much worthwhile I could say to you anyway.
Well, as much as I would love for Sarmatian to be correct, and as much as I am a fan of his, I will have to concede Russia is no good boy. But Sarmatian does have some points though. Far more hostility and indifference was shown by America than Russia.

Russia did their thing and America never reached out, and sticking out your foot for out for us to kiss does not count... Really, Russia let US use is bases to supply Afghanistan, but in return you put bases to further encroach on the Russian "sphere of influence" which was dastardly beyond belief, and wholly unprovoked. That was in 2007, before Georgia. And even Georgia was a mere warning, an attempt to pay back for the US meddling in Kosovo Wars and then the recent Independence you granted to the minuscule province. I ask: why? What could you have gained from that? Do a cost-benefit ratio analysis. Strengthening ties with the second/third most powerful political entity in the world versus appeasing a sleepy, non-oil-bearing Monaco-sized 168th-largest independent region on Earth? You cannot reasonably expect Russia to simply play the US tune, do you? And do not mention gas BTW, as Sarmatian was correct bout that for the most part.


As for the Russians putting a defense shield in Cuba.... (and the Cuban missile crisis).... Kennedy responded to the installation of short & medium range Russian nuclear missles that Kruschev had already declared he intended to use against us. Not so sure that's an apples-to-apples comparison, but as the point that was trying to be made was sovereignty in sphere of interest.... answer me this...
For one, I love it how no Americans seem to remember that the Cuban Missile Crisis Treaty included the removal of US Pershing in Turkey in exchange for the USSR pulling their crap out of Cuba. Also, I do not comprehend what you were attempted to convey in the second part of the paragraph.


why are we allowing Putin to sell nuclear technology (including enrichment capability) to Chavez (who in quasi-Kruschev style) has implied his intent to use it against us.
Evidence, evidence. You have no idea what is going on there. It is not in Russia's interests for nuclear weapons to proliferate. Any current power would rather have this club as exclusive as possible. More unstable nations with atomics is more danger to the entire world. Put yourself in Russia's shoes. Think. What tangible benefit does Russia receive from supplying Chavez with atomics?

And who is to say they can build fission ordnance? Even with nuclear plants, that will takes decades of research, hundreds of billions of dollars, and immense manpower, both physical and intellectual. Not to mention, Korea is the only one so far who is adept at concealeing their activities well. Iran is the only one to have reasonable success enriching uranium. Venezuela has very far to go, and it cannot do it with Russia's direct help.

The only thing Russia may do this for is to employ it as a bargaining chip. It is not, I repeat, not in Russia's interest for anyone else to have atomics.


If anything, there's a paranoid streak in me that thinks there's hawks in the Pentagon that welcome that particular development... Popping a zit is the euphimism they use for it, I believe.
Eh? Dr. Strangelov-esque Ripper-Turgensonianism? Why would anyone in US seek what you seem to be implying as a next world war? Y'all folks like lobbing 'em fusion armaments back 'n forth?

[Tribesman]

why are we allowing Putin to sell nuclear technology (including enrichment capability) to Chavez (who in quasi-Kruschev style) has implied his intent to use it against us.

Using it against you?
You mean nuclear power plants to remove the dependancy on oil so he can sell more oil to the chinese with their upcoming refineries for venezuelan oil which wil be fed from the new pipeline to the pacific and the new terminal that is being built for the new fleet of tankers under construction.
Plus of course as part of the energy deal russia gets a partnership in the gas fields.

Go on Don surely amongst all of chavez regular rantings you must be able to find one that at least sort of has a vague implication of the intent you mention:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

[Xiahou]

Really. US could have easily installed those stems in Iraq, Israel would be delighted to station them, and Turkey already did station defences before they were secretly taken down in exchange for the Soviets doing the same in Cuba. Considering the distance of Poland and Czech Republic from Iran, dozens of other countries could have based those anti-missiles as well, such as other NATO entities. I don't think you understand how the GMD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense) sytem works. In-theatre missile defence is what Obama is keeping. The missile shield that Obama is scrapping was for long-range missiles. They're designed to launch and destroy missiles at the peak of their ascent before they reenter the atmosphere. Launching them in-theatre isn't really a good idea because the interceptor would have to be able to chase down the missile to destroy it and that isn't practical. In the proposed plans, the missiles would have launched from Poland, guided by the Czech radar system to the interception point. Pull out a globe sometime and I think you'll see how the placement makes sense. :yes:

[Tribesman]

Pull out a globe sometime and I think you'll see how the placement makes sense.
Pull out a globe and look at the forcasted range of the missiles Iran is expected to develop after it has finished developing its current development and I think you will see that the placement makes very little sense.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I don't think you understand how the GMD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground-Based_Midcourse_Defense) sytem works. In-theatre missile defence is what Obama is keeping. The missile shield that Obama is scrapping was for long-range missiles. They're designed to launch and destroy missiles at the peak of their ascent before they reenter the atmosphere. Launching them in-theatre isn't really a good idea because the interceptor would have to be able to chase down the missile to destroy it and that isn't practical. In the proposed plans, the missiles would have launched from Poland, guided by the Czech radar system to the interception point. Pull out a globe sometime and I think you'll see how the placement makes sense. :yes:
No, I have seen the illustrations, and it is common sense after all, although I was not aware of what specific type of defence he installed. But yes, normally the missiles are destroyed right before the re-entry. The period of ascent is indeed a trickier one to follow.

It would have still been more sensible to stick the defences in Western Europe though. Germany is right next to Poland. Not to mention, if this is to protect US, I am sure it would have to be placed further West.

Eh, what do you think?

[Xiahou]

Eh, what do you think?
I couldn't say with any authority whether Poland or Germany would be a better site. I would assume that it mainly came down to Poland and the Czech Republic being suitable locations and having governments that were willing to commit to allowing the installations. Both spent a long time under Soviet dominance and were eager forge stronger relationships with the US. Relationships which Obama has damaged by his decision....

In their excuse for scrapping the plans, the administration tries to create the false dilemma that we could either work on that or work on the short-medium range Aegis system. It's false because we were already working on deploying both at the same time. A full featured, robust missile defence system was what we were going to have, now we've dropped our long-range capability. Why?

[Tribesman]

A full featured, robust missile defence system was what we were going to have, now we've dropped our long-range capability. Why?

Because as a system to defend against russian long range missiles it was too close and as a sysyem to defend against the longest range(if they ever get developed)Iranian missiles it was too far away

[HoreTore]

Relationships which Obama has damaged by his decision....

He has damaged the short term relations, and improved the long term relations, a fine move IMO.

Those in favour of this shield have lost their base in their populations, they stand ready to be voted out in favour of politicians opposed to things like this.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As for the Russians putting a defense shield in Cuba.... (and the Cuban missile crisis).... Kennedy responded to the installation of short & medium range Russian nuclear missles that Kruschev had already declared he intended to use against us. Not so sure that's an apples-to-apples comparison, but as the point that was trying to be made was sovereignty in sphere of interest.... answer me this...

Sovereignity in sphere of interest? Where would you exactly draw the bounds of the sphere of interest? (For both Russia and the US?) It is an euphemism for saying you're going to keep a close look on the countries surrounding you and if you deem it necessary bully them into acting a little more friendly towards you...

As for why the missile shield wasn't positioned in, say, Germany: where exactly would the missiles be detonated in the event of a successful interception? Try and think about the arc of the projectile, the consequences of destroying it mid-air *should* their be any fissile material in a warhead... And why do those countries think that starting more grand arms projects is a dangerous precedent? Try and think why those international treaties on *reduction* of arms were put into place & practice.

Finally it's worth noting that part of the deal in 1962 involved the removal of nuclear warheads in Turkey.

[Kommodus]

A full featured, robust missile defence system was what we were going to have, now we've dropped our long-range capability. Why?

Robert Gates defends the new strategy: (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/opinion/20gates.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=robert gates&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=2&adxnnlx=1253802334-oKwgOYxm9t65z2rtTbh99A)


The bottom line is that there will be American missile defense in Europe to protect our troops there and our NATO allies. The new proposal provides needed capacity years earlier than the original plan, and will provide even more robust protection against longer-range threats on about the same timeline as the previous program. We are strengthening — not scrapping — missile defense in Europe.

As we all know, it was Gates's earlier recommendation upon which the original plan was based. In the above article, he explains that the change in plans was based on updated information and analysis of the strategic situation.

Even if a desire for better diplomatic relations with Russia went into this decision, the purely military considerations appear to be compelling enough to argue for the change.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Finally it's worth noting that part of the deal in 1962 involved the removal of nuclear warheads in Turkey.
Someone does not read the previous posts like a good netizen should :juggle2:

I mentioned Turkey and the removal of missiles from is as a part of the Cuban Missile debacle two or three times...

[LittleGrizzly]

Someone does not read the previous posts like a good netizen should :juggle2:

I mentioned Turkey and the removal of missiles from is as a part of the Cuban Missile debacle two or three times...


If you were reading the forums carefully (about) 6 years ago you would have seen that I mentioned it two or three times during a discussion with Gawain ~;)

Its all about diplomacy, going back to the point that many people have made part of the deal for Cuban missles being removed where that the ones in Turkey were removed (though I understand it took them a while to actually do it) I don't know if theres nessecarily a direct pay off with this other than improving relations with Russia, but that itself isn't a bad thing...

[Furunculus]

in theory the pay-off will be a new START agreement which Obama is keen to get, though russia doesn't really care is it has far fewer functional delivery platforms that current treaties allow (or can afford to maintain).

[HoreTore]

in theory the pay-off will be a new START agreement which Obama is keen to get, though russia doesn't really care is it has far fewer functional delivery platforms that current treaties allow (or can afford to maintain).

Perhaps, but the rest of us certainly cares about there being fewer nuclear missiles in the world.

[Furunculus]

no doubt.

[LittleGrizzly]

Its not so much that I see American or Russian nukes as threatening... it just give more legitimacy to coerce others into stopping or limiting thier nuclear capabilities if we are prepared to do the same...

[HoreTore]

Its not so much that I see American or Russian nukes as threatening... it just give more legitimacy to coerce others into stopping or limiting thier nuclear capabilities if we are prepared to do the same...

The less there are in the world, the smaller the chance of one of them blowing up something.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Plus I don't like the idea of the assorted expiration dates coming in rather fast. There is a difference between keeping a train on the track even if its 25 years past its technical lifetime; and doing so with nuclear warheads... Mind, those expiration dates are all about assuming that proper care & maintenance has been provided to ensure that the conditions were kept adequate.

[gaelic cowboy]

The less there are in the world, the smaller the chance of one of them blowing up something.

Actually it's more like the less nuke's the world has the more likely they are to be used especially nowadays with all the stealth technology being developed and the stuff already in use like the B2 etc.

As the gap between smaller nations and the bigger powers reduces the incentive to have a nuke is palpable as it will prevent invasion and plus people will feel they could even get away with using one or two.

Of course as the number increases the likely chance of a mistake in the game of checks and balances increases too.

As long as the number is not less than say a hundred or so not approaching cold war levels the situation is more stable not safer just more stable.

Accidents really would not come into the decision to have them but they might be used as a way to capitalize on a percieved weakness of a member of the nuclear club by another.


Plus I don't like the idea of the assorted expiration dates coming in rather fast. There is a difference between keeping a train on the track even if its 25 years past its technical lifetime; and doing so with nuclear warheads... Mind, those expiration dates are all about assuming that proper care & maintenance has been provided to ensure that the conditions were kept adequate.

Likely Russia and China suffered more from that than US the serious economic problems in Russia especially during the late eighties and nineties probably ended up with them having to mothball a lot of stuff.

[Xiahou]

Well, it turns out (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J04H20100420?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews) that Iran could have missiles capable of striking the US by 2015. Howabout that?

Iran may be able to build a missile capable of striking the United States by 2015, according to an unclassified Defense Department report on Iran's military sent to Congress and released on Monday.

[HoreTore]

Well, it turns out (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J04H20100420?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews) that Iran could have missiles capable of striking the US by 2015. Howabout that?

......and saddam had one too, right?

[PanzerJaeger]

Well, it turns out (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J04H20100420?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews) that Iran could have missiles capable of striking the US by 2015. Howabout that?

Well I for one am glad this administration wasted a year engaged Iran in constructive diplomacy.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

......and saddam had one too, right?

Well, I would like to think that the intelligence sources used were a little better than the ones used to develop the WMD in Iraq report.

On the whole, the military tech capabilities folk seem to be a bit more reliable, though their dates are always a +/- thing.

[Beskar]

The supreme leader of Iran announced that nuclear weapons are tools of the devil or similiar and they are taboo for muslims to use, or even have. Let's hope that is an opinion they keep.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well I for one am glad this administration wasted a year engaged Iran in constructive diplomacy.

Bush wasted all 8 years of his presidency in not pulling the trigger and invading that place.

[Kagemusha]

If there ever will be a day when we have s missile shield technology that will capable destroying 10 out of 10 Ballistic missiles and also capable defeating tactical nukes most of the time. That day we again enter an era in which large scale conventional warfare between superpowers become viable option once again.I wouldnt like to see that day come during my life time.

[Beskar]

I wish they built a colony spaceship and send all the evil commie-socialists into space (me with them), towards a paradise of the new world, leaving the evil capitalists behind.

Unfortunately, I doubt CountAnarch, Louis, HoreTore and some of the regulars here will be gone too. We might kidnap Lemur too and convert him to our ways.

[Lemur]

We might kidnap Lemur too and convert him to our ways.
Sorry, big fan of capitalism here. I'd have a black market up and running on your colony ship before you knew what had hit you.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I wish they built a colony spaceship and send all the evil commie-socialists into space (me with them), towards a paradise of the new world, leaving the evil capitalists behind.

Unfortunately, I doubt CountAnarch, Louis, HoreTore and some of the regulars here will be gone too. We might kidnap Lemur too and convert him to our ways.We must build a heaven on earth.

Images of paradise, of Heaven, are idealisations, blueprints, battlecries; the consolation of hope. But hope turns into deceit when the ideal is thought of as existing on another plane. This life, this earth is all that we have, and we must not sin against it by thinking of heaven as another place. Rather, we must fight for the irreplacable grandeur of this life by seeing heaven as a sacred evocation, a command to make this the best of all possible worlds.

I will stay here. Let us cultivate our garden.

[LittleGrizzly]

I really cannot see Iran going all suicidal and using nuclear weapons on America or any of her pets, I think unspellable leader of Iran has a much worse bark than his bite, I also think a large portion of his bark is built up by our western media. We take things out of context (or simply mistranslate them for the fun of it) ignore our negative actions towards Iran and concentrate only on the negative actions they return towards us, of course they look bad...

I for one support Iran's nuclear program, it has been shown quite clearly that they are on the wrong side of the big boys and the big boys don't wish to play fair, so if even a country like the UK with its friends and high places and modern army must renew its nuclear capabilities then Iran would be positively insane not to make such moves. Besides once the Iranians have such a powerful deterrent they can ignore aggressive actions/words from US and Israel and perhaps without outside distractions the Iranians can think more about Internal reform.

I now the internal reform attempt went badly but Irans leader had the support of most people for building the nuclear weapons, he also had the support of some people for being the man to stand up to Israel and USA. Once the nukes are built and assuming the aggressive rhetoric stops then they guy is running out of reasons to get re-elected (TBH im almost thinking he's like Bush without terrorism to fight, theres not much reason to vote for him)

[rory_20_uk]

I agree. Pushing a country into a corner for a few decades and then acting surprised at the fact they feel got at is obviously hypocritical. But hypocrisy that doesn't get picked up in the West. We meddle with their internal leadership, threaten to bomb them, support hostile regimes, invade two neighbours, make it widely known that any friend of theirs is an enemy of ours... and then they try to get weapons. What is wrong with these blood thirsty monsters? :inquisitive:

Let's not forget Israel went for Nukes as it felt unable to compete in a conventional war against its enemies. I imagine that is completely different though...

I don't think Iran is naturally an "evil" country. Nor are they paranoid - the threat from the West is real and occurs every day. They are what we created. And apparently we'll only be nice after they give up any defences and prostrate themselves at our feet.

~:smoking:

[naut]

We must build a heaven on earth.

Images of paradise, of Heaven, are idealisations, blueprints, battlecries; the consolation of hope. But hope turns into deceit when the ideal is thought of as existing on another plane. This life, this earth is all that we have, and we must not sin against it by thinking of heaven as another place. Rather, we must fight for the irreplacable grandeur of this life by seeing heaven as a sacred evocation, a command to make this the best of all possible worlds.

I will stay here. Let us cultivate our garden.
:sweetheart: