Printable View
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:
1) I dunno, I personally would say that Gates is probably the one I'd be listening to over people not actually in the know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
2) We already have troops in Poland, so its not as though we can't claim retaliation, as was claimed by Furunculus else here earlier in the thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Secretary Gates
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
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.
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.
And to top it all off, you've given the Polish nationalists teh boot too! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
(...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:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan
Besides, what is there to be in the know about? The NIE has been leaked all over the place....
The original estimate was 2012- the same year that the system in Poland was to be fully deployed.Quote:
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.
All of the arrangements had already been made. Who does it benefit to back out now?
When will you Germans learn? Poland isn't your backyard. It hasn't been for a long time now. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
We already have the missile shield deployed in our own territory- it's called Alaska. :yes:
You could start by admitting that was a stupid statement about WW2 it was both insensitive and irrelevant to the discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.Quote:
Austrian empire was dismembered by France, UK and US and yet Austria today actually cooperates with those countries... Go figure...
Yeah whateverQuote:
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....
I didn't say that it was going to happen it is not I meant only they are making sure it never can happen.Quote:
Oh, yeah, colour revolutions... Smart... Support for leaders of the colour revolutions range from 5-15% nowadays.
Instability puts the price up you know thats a fact even a sniff of war sends oil prices up.Quote:
Freakin' bastards, they actually want to get paid for their gas. How dare they!?
?
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.Quote:
I don't get this.
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.Quote:
Debatable...
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 etcQuote:
Selling stuff isn't the same as being closest political and military allies.
:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
By selling their energy and resources to Europe they're preventing America and Europe to make money???
Correct if you cant see it fine doesn't change itQuote:
Oh, yeah, the reason for turning the taps off was to show the EU who's boss :dizzy2:
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.Quote:
Do you bother to inform yourself about an issue before you speak about it???
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.Quote:
Fact 1 - during he soviet era, not once were energy supplies cut off from the western Europe, even during the most serious crises.
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.Quote:
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.
Rubbish winter lasts longer than a few weeks in northern europe and that pipe has to go a long way.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
Fact 7 - Russia makes huge amounts of money by selling energy and resources to the west. It's in their interest to keep selling.
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.Quote:
Now, you may choose to ignore all this and cry "Russia is teh evil empire!", with Darth Vader music in the background.
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
So, obviously, it can be done.Quote:
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.
Wonder why...Quote:
I didn't say that it was going to happen
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.Quote:
Instability puts the price up you know thats a fact even a sniff of war sends oil prices up.
I'm definitely trying that. I just have to go to Russia first, obviously.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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".Quote:
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.
Sorry, I'll be more mindful in the future :laugh4:Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Rubbish winter lasts longer than a few weeks in northern europe and that pipe has to go a long way.
And how much did the price go up in that period?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
It's a symbiotic relationship. Europe needs energy, Russia needs someone to buy their excess energy.Quote:
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.
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.
That's true for any great power, trust me, you don't ever want to be on the wrong side of American interests.Quote:
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.
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.
i'm just responding as a brit who didn't lose 20% of his fellow citizens and have his country destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmatian
Oh dear. Not a rift between the US and 'New Europe'? Goodness!Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
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:
:sweatdrop:Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
The original estimate was 2012- the same year that the system in Poland was to be fully deployed.
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.
This. It simply comess down to this, and nothing else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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.
No, politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Politics is bolloxQuote:
No, politics.
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 other weapons to Latin American countries and no 'ZOMG' yet. ~:handball:Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil
Quote:
"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."
Uhm.......Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
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....
Wake me when it gets to Defcon: ZOMG ITS WAR!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
:sleeping:
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Nuclear missiles at the height of the Cold War vs. missile shield in Poland.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
I see no difference.
“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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Right. We do believe you.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Hehe, joke of the month :laugh4:. :thumbsdown:Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
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:
Seems like an unwarranted generalization to me :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
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.
That's what happens when you lose the cold war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
AMERICA-1
russkies-0
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.