US 'shelves Europe missile plan'

**astralis** · 05 Jan 10,, 18:36

dreadnought,

stop talking out you ass like your the innocent party to all of this when you most certainly have very much to do with Irans nuclear capabilities.

actually, i highly doubt russia wants to see iran with nuclear capability-- that means russia will have less influence on what they can do with tehran. what the russians like is the current situation, where the US is forced to spend greater amounts of money and political capital against what they consider a proxy power.

of course, they're also worried that a missile shield could be aimed at them, which given the system's capabilities is a pretty delusional idea. i do agree with the sentiment that if the russians believe it is a chip against them, that we could/should have asked for something publicly tangible in return for a BMD shift. however, i disagree with the idea that by doing the shift, we're somehow kowtowing to them and giving them a green light to be more aggressive.

i think events have played out in favor of my argument. since the annoucement, have we seen russia increase its hostile acts or become more aggressive? similarly, have we seen poland and other eastern european nations withdraw from the US? seeing as how poland led the way by pledging more troops for afghanistan recently...

**Dreadnought** · 05 Jan 10,, 18:47

actually, i highly doubt russia wants to see iran with nuclear capability-- that means russia will have less influence on what they can do with tehran. what the russians like is the current situation, where the US is forced to spend greater amounts of money and political capital against what they consider a proxy power.

If Russia wants to settle disputes, then proxy power isint the way to go. If we the US used proxy power to our ability with Russia then Cuba and Venezuala would no longer be a port of call for the Russians and three more former soviet blocs would already be in NATO.

In other words it need not be this way but this is the road they are traveling so we should certainly act in our own defense instead of making deals over terrorist regimes.

**astralis** · 05 Jan 10,, 19:06

dreadnought,

If Russia wants to settle disputes, then proxy power isint the way to go. If we the US used proxy power to our ability with Russia then Cuba and Venezuala would no longer be a port of call for the Russians and three more former soviet blocs would already be in NATO.

In other words it need not be this way but this is the road they are traveling so we should certainly act in our own defense instead of making deals over terrorist regimes.

hahaha, dread, surely you don't think the US is out of the proxy game!

what is israel and taiwan if not proxies? similarly, we weren't exactly shy in 2003 about potentially turning iraq into a proxy; and i have high doubts the europeans would have troops in afghanistan were it not for US will.

the use of proxies is completely understandable-- using others to raise the costs of your adversary, or even potential adversaries.

the issue here is not so much proxy use but what people are actually doing in response to the BMD shift. to my eyes, nothing has really changed, which sort of invalidates the position that the BMD shift was a craven bit of appeasement that would Doom Us All.

as for putin complaining, who cares? talk is cheap. it's when they actually DO something that it starts being a headache for us.

**Dreadnought** · 05 Jan 10,, 19:11

hahaha, dread, surely you don't think the US is out of the proxy game!

*Not at all my friend, we have no choice but to continue. The sad part for all is our proxies dont threaten whiping other countries from the map.

I have no fear of Iran, Its Iran that should fear our proxies.

)

**astralis** · 05 Jan 10,, 19:26

dreadnought,

The sad part for all is our proxies dont threaten whiping other countries from the map.

yeah, our proxies don't threaten, they tend to just about do it (see: israel)

as for iran or another russian proxy walking off the reservation, the story of the Alpha Group should be a good corrective.

**Dreadnought** · 05 Jan 10,, 20:05

Originally Posted by astralis

dreadnought,

yeah, our proxies don't threaten, they tend to just about do it (see: israel)

as for iran or another russian proxy walking off the reservation, the story of the Alpha Group should be a good corrective.

Agreed, Tom Clancy would be proud.

)

**Mihais** · 06 Feb 10,, 10:12

As expected since autumn,we're now involved.Romania approves US missile defence shield - Telegraph
and Romania in New US Missile Defence Shield.

The Russian response is moderate and it will probably remain as such.The public opinion is largely favorable,except for some old Reds and some political opponents of the President who can't seem to grasp that there may be national interests at stake.I'm glad for the Patriot btn's that will come with the interceptors and the modernization and expansion of our bases and training infrastructure.It will also bring a higher level of alert in the Army and security services that will protect the US troops and bases.

**1979** · 08 Feb 10,, 18:36

Originally Posted by Mihais

there may be national interests at stake.

Were was the national interest when we bought this junk ?

File:Romanian MIM-23 HAWK.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What really annoys me is the fact that we parade this as a new step toward interoperability and modernization , when in fact this missile system should have bean phased out 16 years ago.

**Mihais** · 08 Feb 10,, 19:05

1979,here's a good one.You can only see those at parades.It is usually mothballed.That junk of a system is not even studied at AF Academy by future AD officers.That's why I mentioned the US Patriot btn's.Because our own AD is in dire straits.AFAIK it covers only Bucharest(and a more useless objective they couldn't find

).It's a shameful situation and I hate to see foreign troops doing what we should ourselves.Even if those troops happen to be our current big brother.BTW those ADA and the rest of the US troops are a nothing but my presumtion at the moment.Of course what the pres. announced needs to be ratified(no problems here

),infrastructure needs to be built etc...What pi...s me is that our only contribution will be geography,real estate and bodyguard service for the US troops.

**andrew** · 08 Feb 10,, 21:36

Originally Posted by Mihais

As expected since autumn,we're now involved.Romania approves US missile defence shield - Telegraph
and Romania in New US Missile Defence Shield.

I hope after this announcement the new start pact with the US will be quitted.

Washington's continued efforts to build a missile defense shield in Europe have complicated nuclear arms reduction talks with Russia, Russia's deputy prime minister said on Saturday.

"It is impossible to talk seriously about the reduction of nuclear capabilities when a nuclear power is working to deploy protective systems against vehicles to deliver nuclear warheads possessed by other countries," Sergei Ivanov said at an international security conference in Munich.

**Mihais** · 08 Feb 10,, 22:37

And how the BMD deployed in SE Europe stops your missiles?Or its only about the pretext?

**Dreadnought** · 09 Feb 10,, 15:40

Originally Posted by andrew

I hope after this announcement the new start pact with the US will be quitted.

*And your not the only ones.:P

**andrew** · 09 Feb 10,, 21:27

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

*And your not the only ones.:P

I wonder if both of us (I mean the clear majorities in the USA and Russia) are against the treaty why is it hastened so hard?

**Dreadnought** · 10 Feb 10,, 13:25

Originally Posted by andrew

I wonder if both of us (I mean the clear majorities in the USA and Russia) are against the treaty why is it hastened so hard?

*Political promises to the masses from both sides begining years ago after the Cold War. Dont get me wrong, it is a good thing to reduce the arsenals but neither side trusts one another and both are in question of what the others true intentions really are. It has always been a source of mistrust between the two but it does not mean we should not pursue this goal. What we also need is to stop countries like Iran and others whos regimes are irresponsible and childish in their hatred towards others before they can create such a weapon. Our two countries have had them for over 50 years so we know the responsibility and how close we have come during the 1960's. They clearly dont and act as a child weilding their fathers shotgun. In other words, they threaten, and might even use one before imagining the reprocussions of their use. They wont be allowed to have one no matter how much Russia or China deny santions on the regime. Its only a matter of time before all else has failed and another solution is pursued as a means to an end.

**Rastagir** · 10 Feb 10,, 15:02

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

*Political promises to the masses from both sides begining years ago after the Cold War. Dont get me wrong, it is a good thing to reduce the arsenals but neither side trusts one another and both are in question of what the others true intentions really are. It has always been a source of mistrust between the two but it does not mean we should not pursue this goal. What we also need is to stop countries like Iran and others whos regimes are irresponsible and childish in their hatred towards others before they can create such a weapon. Our two countries have had them for over 50 years so we know the responsibility and how close we have come during the 1960's. They clearly dont and act as a child weilding their fathers shotgun. In other words, they threaten, and might even use one before imagining the reprocussions of their use. They wont be allowed to have one no matter how much Russia or China deny santions on the regime. Its only a matter of time before all else has failed and another solution is pursued as a means to an end.

I do not disagree with you. However some points I would like to raise.

You say that their regimes are irresponsible and childish in their hatred. But is that with no good reason? Americans interfered in Iran's domestic affairs before. It is logical for Iranians to be paranoid and for the regime to be afraid. Especially since, in the last decade, they saw "the evil americans" invade muslim countries twice and heard Bush's speeches about the "Axis of Evil". Any regime and every country would be afraid and become paranoid. Wasn't the whole Cold War a result of such paranoia? So they try to get their hands on nuclear technology as means of deterrence. I understand your point of view and your own fears for such an event. But as I see it, they threaten because they feel threatened. Which is logical and not a philosophy of "we want nukes because we really, REALLY want to use them". That's not the impression I am getting at least.

What I want to say is that Iran right now is not necessarily "evil". Just very, very afraid.