Page 1 of 20 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 293

Thread: US 'shelves Europe missile plan'

  1. #1
    Professor (retired) Senior Contributor Merlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Feb 09
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Posts
    2,674

    US 'shelves Europe missile plan'

    Not that this is the only reason, has this any connection with Turkey's purchase of advanced missiles from the US?

    US 'shelves Europe missile plan'
    17 Sept [BBC] The US is to abandon its plan to develop a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic, the Czech prime minister has announced.

    Earlier reports from the US said it would be dropped because Iran's long-range missile plans were less advanced than predicted.

    Czech Prime Minister Jan Fischer said US President Barack Obama had notified him of the change of plan.

    The plan had antagonised Russia, which saw it as a direct threat.

    President Obama earlier this year ordered a review of the defence system, introduced by his predecessor George W Bush. ....

  2. #2
    TTL
    TTL is offline
    Contributor TTL's Avatar
    Join Date
    20 Oct 07
    Location
    ANKARA
    Posts
    345
    I think it has more to do with US-Russian relations. Why would on earth Iran attack czechs or poles its not like they are out of enemies here in ME.

  3. #3
    Contributor
    Join Date
    31 Aug 09
    Posts
    445

    Barack Obama to abandon European missile-defence shield


  4. #4
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Posts
    815
    I wonder if Russia will remove its nukes from Kaliningrad?

  5. #5
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Posts
    815
    I don't think so.. might lower tensions with Russia, but anything that shoots down bombs is a good thing in my opinion. Maybe Europe should develop its own missile shield.

  6. #6
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Aug 07
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by zara View Post
    I wonder if Russia will remove its nukes from Kaliningrad?
    They're not nukes. They're just ballistic missiles.

  7. #7
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by Silent Hunter View Post
    They're not nukes. They're just ballistic missiles.
    oh... I thought they were the same thing.. Whats the difference?

  8. #8
    Professor (retired) Senior Contributor Merlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    02 Feb 09
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
    Posts
    2,674
    Russia is very happy with this decision. Obama has a wish list of things to get in return from Russia. Will he be able to get them?

    Barack Obama's missile shield decision will be cheered in Russia
    The Kremlin will allow itself a wry smile today. Reports that Barack Obama has scrapped plans for a missile defence shield in Eastern Europe are music to its ears.

    17 Sept [Telegraph] Tomorrow's Russian newspapers are therefore likely to be triumphalist in tone. "See, we were right to give the Americans a hard time on this" will be the line.

    The climb-down undoubtedly does represent a significant strategic victory for the Kremlin. It also gives substance to Washington's so far woolly "reset" of relations with Russia, and will go a long way to soothe wounded Russian egos.
    Moscow's biggest complaint about the Bush administration was that it did not take Russia or Russian strategic interests seriously. There is nothing Russians hate more than to think that their old Cold War adversary is not giving them the respect they believe they are due. This therefore will be held up as proof to ordinary Russians that Russia is once again a serious player on the world stage. .....

    The Kremlin is not known for missing opportunities to pat itself on the back and this particular propaganda coup has been served up on a plate with all the trimmings. ....

    The reflected glory will go to Vladimir Putin. The prime minister has been the missile shield's most vocal and high profile opponent, drawing on some of his famously fiery rhetoric to reject the US plan. This news will serve to bolster his already stellar popularity ratings, cementing his position as Russia's most powerful politician and heavyweight international statesman. ....

    Russia effectively staked its entire bilateral relationship with the US on the dispute in a high stakes game of poker that appears to have paid off. ....

    The big question now though is what if anything is Russia ready to do in return? Washington has a meaty wish list. It wants Russia to back tough sanctions against Iran to curb the Islamic Republic's nuclear alleged ambitions. It would also like Russia to make deep cuts in its own nuclear arsenal when it comes to renegotiating a key arms control treaty due to expire in December.

    And last, but not least, it wants Russia's continued cooperation in helping Washington keep its troops in Afghanistan well supplied.

    Iran will be the toughest issue to crack. The Russian government has so far appeared split on the sanctions issue with Mr Putin strongly opposing the idea and President Dmitry Medvedev apparently remaining open to such a demarche.

    Will the Russians be magnanimous in victory? Or will they, as the foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has said in the past, choose to frame the decision as an overdue correction of a Bush era mistake rather than as a real concession that requires reciprocity.

    That is the 64,000 ruble question.

  9. #9
    Administrator Tarek Morgen's Avatar
    Join Date
    08 Feb 07
    Location
    Kassel
    Posts
    4,413
    Quote Originally Posted by zara View Post
    oh... I thought they were the same thing.. Whats the difference?
    A nuke is a nuclear bomb. A ballistic missle is..well a missle..which can be used to carry nuclear boms or simply conventional ordnance..or chemical weapons.
    I.E. They are only a mean to get the actual weapon to the desired location.

  10. #10
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Aug 07
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by zara View Post
    oh... I thought they were the same thing.. Whats the difference?
    A ballistic missile is simply a surface-to-surface missile that goes in a ballistic trajectory. A nuke can be mounted on that, but it doesn't have to be.

    For examples of ballistic missiles without nukes, you have the V2 and the "Scuds" which Saddam used in 1991. The ones the Russians were planning to deploy were Iskander/SS-26 "Stone" missiles, conventional-only missiles that are successors to the "Scuds".

  11. #11
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Posts
    815
    lol, so whats on the end of these missiles then?


    Even if Russia plays ball on Iran, in order to get sanctions, the US still needs Chinese support.

  12. #12
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    09 Aug 07
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    907
    Quote Originally Posted by zara View Post
    lol, so whats on the end of these missiles then?
    Just a lot of high explosive.

  13. #13
    Regular
    Join Date
    01 Mar 08
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by zara View Post
    anything that shoots down bombs
    You're just trying to make me laugh aren't you??

  14. #14
    Senior Contributor Luke Gu's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Jul 09
    Location
    hangzhou
    Posts
    1,026
    I don't think so.. might lower tensions with Russia, but anything that shoots down bombs is a good thing in my opinion.
    It just force Russia to Manufacture more advanced missiles。

  15. #15
    nebula82's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 08
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    689
    I always saw this as more of a strategy to encircle Russia and neutralize their still very potent arsenal. This shield serves no purpose other than to inflame tensions with powers like Russia. Iran is cited as a reason not because they’re a legitimate threat, but just as a cover for the US to increase it’s already bloated global military presence, IMO.

    Iran is not a serious threat to Israel, the US or the West. The Iranian leadership may be uncooperative and hostile, but they will not attack. They’re neither stupid nor suicidal.

    At least the cancellation of this shield saves some money, too!

    The US will probably resort to using a less permanent sea-based missile defence system then?

    Nebula82.

Page 1 of 20 12345678910 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. US Airpower at risk of self-destruction ?
    By Shipwreck in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 30 Oct 08,, 16:36
  2. Obama picks Biden as Vp
    By resurgentrussia in forum American Politics & Economy
    Replies: 77
    Last Post: 26 Sep 08,, 08:07
  3. NATO warns US missile defense could divide allies
    By xrough in forum The Americas
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 19 Nov 07,, 05:11
  4. Carrier killers (an article from JED online)
    By lurker in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 172
    Last Post: 28 Dec 06,, 04:39

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •