GEORGIA AN EXAMPLE !!! The BEAR is out of HIBERNATION

**Ray** · 24 Aug 08, 10:02

[QUOTE=snapper;536124]

Originally Posted by brokeraz

My position is that there's a relentless and steady trend to block off Russia which has been going on ever since an opportunity came up (1991).

Expansion of NATO right upto Russian borders, plans for military installations which directly challenge Russian security, arms and training to Georgia, and just general support in the region to whomever has the potential to come to a position of power and is anti-Moscow.

Whether or not this fits into an official policy makes little difference. Though, since these events are taking place there's an indication it does.

a. Official reports does I agree does not amount to Government policy when done by a "thinktank" or some such comittee. What has Government policy written all over it is normaly signed - at least this is the case in the West.

b. Who has blocked you off and from what? I do not see this.

c. Yes the expansion of NATO is a breach of the promise that no former Warsaw Pact members should be alowed membership.

d. The shield in Poland has 10 rockets as I understand it (please correct me if I am wrong) and Russia has some 7000 nuclear warheads. Threat? It cannot be seriously considered as one.Russian security is quite safe with this, nor I believe does anyone want any Russian territory.

I honestly believe Mr brokeraz that you may sleep in peace! It just worries me though that you are so paranoid. Unlike the former Soviet Union (and the current US Administration lol) the West usualy wins its wars by ideas, at least in the long run.

Russia should be treated as an equal I agree and promises should never be broken by those who uphold justice etc... yet for Russia to be recognised as an equal requires that she BE an equal and not act as a soveriegn power over her neighbours. Equal means equal - not greater nor lesser.

It may make Poland feel as snug as a bug.

However, read the thread ''Hostile Russia".

**Ray** · 24 Aug 08, 10:03

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/int...-new-post.html

**~~brokeraz~~** · 24 Aug 08, 10:05

There's nothing in my posts you've quoted which states that current U.S. foreign policy is ME centric.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I have never denied NATO expansion. I challenged your position that it contradicted American policy.

It seems pretty well that you laid the entire blame on the US.

My position is that U.S. is actively participating in boxing Russia in. Examining who's to blame is for a classroom discussion.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

Have you been in a position of power?

I'm not going to dance this dance with you, sorry. Policy-writers do not get to run much. End of story.

**Officer of Engineers** · 24 Aug 08, 10:13

Neither am I going to play these games with you. I have challenged your position. You failed to respond and instead of taking hints on how to behave, you proceed to continue a flamewar that I tried to put away.

Please go somewhere else.

**Ray** · 24 Aug 08, 10:15

brokeraz

Actually, he is a Major! Not Captain America and he is actually a nice chap!

But then its Goodbye!

But then these days people think they are Wyatt Earp or the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland!

It is this Global Warming that some don't believe is true is what is producing hothouse plants and hot heads!

**snapper** · 24 Aug 08, 15:27

Originally Posted by cyppok

The point about 10 missile interceptors is that there is possibility of using first strike weapons ergo 10 first strike missiles from the Russian point of view. Now if each missile carries several warheads thats a major problem.

Ideas don't win wars... thats a gimmick, with marketing and psychology intertwined to make you believe...

Ahem by your definition of Equality the U.S. should be treated just as poorly for all its adventures, which is not the case is it?
______________________________________

I am going to reiterate my point about Ukraine.
The most astute politician in Ukraine is Timoshenko, she is the
shark de la creme of Ukrainian politics. If anyone noticed she
did not jump on the band-wagon of condemning Russian action.
The only reason logically for her not to do it is because there
would be more to loose than to gain politically.

The amount of strain in society over this posturing to the west
without getting anything concrete in return is systemically dividing
the society between pragmatics and idealists. Pragmatics are the center
of Ukraine ones that are neither pro-region nor pro-nationalist in their
point of view. They are literally in the center most of those regions are close to 60/40 or 50/50 splits with people voting based on delivery or expected delivery. Wonderful speeches followed by gas hikes and European trade barriers are beginning to wear thin.

As to the missile shield I certainly do not claim to know but as far as I understand these are interceptors and not first strike cruise type missiles, nor are they designed to strike first, nor 'pointed' at Russia.

Being right may not win wars agreed, but it never hurts

. The decline in world support for the US since the invasion of Iraq is perhaps a reflection of this.

As to Ukraine I agree Sir: she wants to be President and is hedging her bets?

**snapper** · 24 Aug 08, 15:30

Re: brokeraz... :( I keep missing them, farewell!

**Shuriff** · 24 Aug 08, 15:54

Originally Posted by snapper

As to the missile shield I certainly do not claim to know but as far as I understand these are interceptors and not first strike cruise type missiles, nor are they designed to strike first, nor 'pointed' at Russia.

That's actually an interesting question. While I agree that all this fuss about missile shield is mostly a political show, there are several points to consider.
1.There is a quite complicated first strike scenario, when US is able to destroy most of Russian ICBMs (and, obviously SBLMs) by sudden strike and missile shield is to deal with few missiles that were not hit. It is a scenario for the future and its not very probable, but its there.
2. Theoretically, it is possible to replace interceptors with medium-range ballistic missiles and use them for the first strike itself.
3. Missile shield thechnology is far from being perfect now, but its improving quickly and in the future it may become quite dangerous for Russia.

**Officer of Engineers** · 24 Aug 08, 18:00

Originally Posted by Shuriff

1.There is a quite complicated first strike scenario, when US is able to destroy most of Russian ICBMs (and, obviously SBLMs) by sudden strike and missile shield is to deal with few missiles that were not hit. It is a scenario for the future and its not very probable, but its there.

It would have to be the interceptors based in North America. The Polish interceptors are in the wrong place.

Originally Posted by Shuriff

2. Theoretically, it is possible to replace interceptors with medium-range ballistic missiles and use them for the first strike itself.

Prohibited by the INF Treaty.

Originally Posted by Shuriff

3. Missile shield thechnology is far from being perfect now, but its improving quickly and in the future it may become quite dangerous for Russia.

I'm sure Russia is developing a system of its own.

**~~bengalraider~~** · 24 Aug 08, 19:13

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It would have to be the interceptors based in North America. The Polish interceptors are in the wrong place.

Prohibited by the INF Treaty.

I'm sure Russia is developing a system of its own.

sir doesn't the s-300pmu2 and the sv-400 already have ABM capability

S2 · 24 Aug 08, 19:14

Brigadier,

"Actually, he is a Major!"

Really? How surprising given his opinion about accrediting sources and attribution in general. Must be a real fighting man, that one.

To his credit, he never once offered a point of reference.

Sir, if you've a problem with Zraver, keep it there. Astralis, Shek, Me, whoever. You seem to ascribe to a very cynical world-view that reeks of zero-sum competition.

Let me tell you what I think- our global ambition is not I win-you lose. Instead, it's to increase net global value, facilitating win-win under as many circumstances as achievable. My Indo-Pak Corps is premised that way.

Not you fellas. With the exception of Deltacamelately and Tronic, it wasn't even seriously explored. Nor the underlying premises. Nor alternative paths that might facilitate the same end desire.

Sup wit dat?

Hope, belief in a better tomorrow, and win-win drive our engine. Hope it's that way for you too.

**Officer of Engineers** · 24 Aug 08, 19:31

Originally Posted by bengalraider

sir doesn't the s-300pmu2 and the sv-400 already have ABM capability

I'm talking about intercepts outside the atmosphere. Not point defences just above the target.

**~~bengalraider~~** · 24 Aug 08, 19:50

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

I'm talking about intercepts outside the atmosphere. Not point defences just above the target.

ok that answers my question

also, how long do you think Russia will take to evolve the s-400 into a exo-atmospheric interceptor, i mean if India could do it in a matter of months with the AAD. Russia with far greater experience in rocket engines should be able to do it way faster

**Shuriff** · 24 Aug 08, 20:10

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

It would have to be the interceptors based in North America. The Polish interceptors are in the wrong place.

Sir,
I'd like to know your opinion - why does US needs this missle shield? Is it REALLY supposed to shoot down missiles from Iran? Honestly, I don't see how it can harm Russia in the nearest future, I just don't see any realistic scenarious for that. But on the other hand, isn't it an overkill, considering current iranian technological capabilities? Its quite expensive, and methinks US DoD really should've spent those money on something else.

S2 · 24 Aug 08, 20:17

"...considering current iranian technological capabilities?"

How would that compare to ten years ago? How does that project? Do they show indication of interest in improving delivery capability and accuracy?

Do they want a bomb?

Thread: GEORGIA AN EXAMPLE !!! The BEAR is out of HIBERNATION

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Ray Reply

Shuriff Reply

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Russian troops advance in Georgia

Russia on the march - again

Sudan arrests teacher over 'Mohammed' bear

Putin’s Logic On Georgia And The Frozen Conflicts

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions