[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by highsea
That is your own speculation (the part in bold). A counter strike against mid-east targets could be made from either US soil, USAF bombers, or SSBN's at sea- in all cases without expending additional resources to base new missiles in Europe. And NOWHERE can I find any legitimate discussion of placing new offensive missiles in Europe.
Therefore it is a Strawman Argument.
|
When you look at a military issue, you look at the issue in all its ramifications. The weapon platforms you have suggested is true. But when planning for one defence (Russian point of view), are you suggesting that missile in Europe will not be considered/
Currently, Russia possibly can contest the present number of missiles in Europe. However, with an ABM, that capability gets curtailed! Thus, the balance of power question.
Are you suggesting that the ABM and the interceptors are incapable of containing Russian missiles targeting Europe? If they can, then again comes the balance of power! Are you suggesting that the ABM interceptors would not be effective against Russian missile before the warhead separates if positioned in Czech republic?
So hardly any Strawman pizazz!
Quote:
|
Bah. Russia has no military power over Europe. The balance of power was irrevocably shifted when the USSR imploded. Russia's only effective lever is oil and gas.
|
Why? Have the Russian missiles been confiscated? Or their huge Army been disbanded?
In case they are so moribund then why worry about them?
And yet you worry!
Quote:
|
Putin is only building up the Russian nuclear arsenal as a symbolic show of strength. A weapon that can't be used is useless for anything but a deterrent, the the thousands of existing Russian missiles are quite effective for that purpose.
|
Well that deterrent did work, didn't it?
And it is still working it seems since quite a few countries are not keen that the ABM be installed as planned
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/790964815
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder told the summit that important questions about the technical feasibility of the plan remained.
French President Jacques Chirac said the ABM treaty, which outlaws national missile defence, was a "pillar" of global security.
CNN.com - Bush: Missile shield fears 'allayed' - June 13, 2001
Quote:
|
As I already mentioned, the Russian rhetoric is strictly playing to the home audience against the NATO bogeyman. This ABM system has no bearing on Russian military power in Europe.
|
Putin's logic as above applies.
Quote:
You are intentionally obfuscating. How does an ABM base in Cuba protect Russia against US missiles?
Answer: It can't.
|
Now that is a real Strawman answer.
I said hypothetical.
And you obfuscate!
AK 47 scares the hell out of you. And obviously therefore you wish to dodge the ABM in Mexico or Cuba hypothetical example as to how US would react if these were there !
[quote]
Quote:
Here you go:And as Condi Rice put it in a German news conference:
I answered this question in another thread, but I will repeat it here: Mexico and Cuba are sovereign countries, and while the US might not like it, there is not much we could do about it.
|
True,
Cuba was a sovereign nation and yet when the Russian missiles were deployed there for "Cuba's sef defence", the US nearly brought the world down with a confrontation that could have triggered a nuclear war had better sense not prevailed on both sides!
And you say the US would sit smug if an ABM got deployed in Cuba or Mexico?
Wanting to have you cake and eat it too?
Quote:
If nuclear missiles targeting the US were placed, it would be 1962 all over again. But radars and interceptors do not represent offensive capabilities.
Those AK-47's will be hell on South America, and will kill a hell of a lot of innocent people.
|
That's you way of looking at it.
Try sometimes to look at it from other's point of view too!
I saw a thread where Mr First spoke about the US going about the world at will under the label of "Democracy". Well, that is how they see it.
AK 47 maybe hell for South America.
How does it concern you?
South America is not the USA.
Go answer this.
You scoffed at my stating that Russia was worried that the next step is GPALS since it is not in place, and yet you state that the ABM is for Iran's missile which is under development!
Tail you win and Heads I lose?
It 0250 hours here or 2:50 AM.
See you tomorrow!
Spoconoi nochi!
Спокойной ночи.