Any American system aimed at intercepting Russian missiles would have to be in the northern wastes of Canada, considering the shortest route is over the North Pole and not over Europe and the Atlantic.
Oh, and jennery:
And 3,000,000,000 billion dollars?! Goddamn!
HD Ready?
He's banned. Don't worry about him. Now about that North Canada . . . . . . OoE you don't happen to own any property up there that I could ... ahem borrow for a nominal fee?
EDIT:AHA. HistoricalDavid what now? Our missile defense system is already in place.
Last edited by Feanor; 21 Nov 07, at 01:12.
Wow! Two cents per square mile! Expensive!
HD Ready?
Originally Posted by MrFirst
Once again - if Russian people believe ex KGB president - this is your choice. I wish you all the best with him.
If Russia needs to react as you say to the threats from the west - by all means do so. Just one difference -these interceptors - are just regular surface to air missiles. So if Russia will "solve" the problem of parity with this by putting more nuclear rockets aiming at something - don't be surprised if that would not be considered equal thing to the one in Poland. Also I repeat - USA has offered Russian officials and military to participate in this project - meaning physically be there and monitor the station. If it was purely anti-Russian thing- would USA do this?
About inventing things. Nothing is being invented about Iran. Why I am afraid about Iran is because basically the process of creating nuclear power station and nuclear bomb is 98% identical. So it is a perfect cover. They can insist on the peaceful purpose of this research to the very last moment and then announce withdrawal from the treaty and creation of Bomb within one month. After which it is too late. My suspicions are also based on the fact that Iran had repeatedly denied a Russian and European way of out this problem. Russian is - all the nuclear fuel have to delivered and then once it is spent - returned to Russia. European project is to build reactor based on Light water technology - which doesn't give you a capability to create a weapon. Russian proposal was that Russia will deliver enriched Uranium to the nuclear power plant and take it back once it is spent. So no any other programs can be going on. It is very exact amount so you can't cheat it so easily. Iran denied that - some as a matter of pride. But I think because of their hidden desire to build weapons grade uranium without any interference and control. European proposition was to offer Iran another type of nuclear reactor - on so called Light Water (They are building one on Heavy Water). The Light water reactor is more expensive, but it produces more energy and more efficient in use. Also you cannot use Uranium and plutonium fro it to build weapons - it is not enriched enough for it. So it will be only for energy.
Both are denied by Iran. Ask yourself why? So it is very real.
Finally about Israel - it is a very small state so even one bomb will be enough to destroy it and knowing this and also the fact that 6 million Jews perished at the hands of another madman - I can understand why they don't want to take any chances with any lunatics. Russia will never understand it -it is way to big to care and to comprehend this mentality.
"We Shall Never Surrender" Winston Churchill
Poland demands US air defence system
By Jan Cienski in Warsaw and Demetri Sevastopulo in Washington
Published: November 19 2007 22:34 | Last updated: November 20 2007 01:24
US plans to base part of a missile defence system in Poland must be matched with a commitment to deploy weapons to protect Polish air space, the new Warsaw government said on Monday in an early indication that it intends to stand by election promises to adopt a more assertive stance towards Washington.
Bogdan Klich, defence minister, said Warsaw would have to undertake a “new *attempt at balancing the benefits and costs” of allowing the US to build a base on Polish territory to hold 10 anti-missile interceptors.
His comments in a newspaper interview reflect the changed tone set by the new government of Donald Tusk, prime minister, and his liberal Civic Platform party, which took power on Friday. Mr Tusk has pledged to refocus Polish foreign policy in a more pro-European direction after the strongly pro-US tilt under his precedessor, Jaroslaw Kaczynski.
Mr Klich said his government would fulfil another campaign promise and withdraw by next year 900 Polish troops stationed in Iraq, perhaps leaving only a training mission under Nato.
Warsaw is worried that by allowing the US missile defence system on to its territory Poland would become a target, so the government wants anti-missile systems, such as Patriot or THAAD, a high-altitude system, to protect Polish air space.
“Thanks to them we would be able to better protect not only elements of the shield but also the territory of our country,” said Mr Klich.
But with its call for *Washington to provide Poland with short-range *systems, Warsaw risks *infuriating Russia, which is already deeply suspicious of the whole missile defence shield project.
As well as the Polish base the proposed shield would in*clude a radar base in the Czech Republic, and it would aim to intercept missiles from states such as Iran.
US officials, who insist the shield does not endanger Moscow’s thousands of missiles, have been wary of similar past requests from Poland, fearing Russia’s reaction.
Mr Klich said Moscow’s problem was not the base itself but “the institutionalised presence of the US in central Europe”, which would mark the final end of Russia’s attempts to exert influence in a region it had historically controlled.
The shield is controversial in both Poland and the Czech Republic, but the Pentagon expresses optimism about its negotiations with Prague. Officials have been more cautious about the prospects for talks with Poland, given the change in government. Congress recently cut funds to build a missile defence site in Poland, saying the Pentagon had to first reach *agreement with Warsaw.
In Moscow last month, Robert Gates, US defence secretary, and Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, told President Vladimir Putin that the US would be willing to delay activating the missile defence system until Russia and the US agreed Iranian missiles posed a threat to Europe and the US.
Officials have not ruled out the possibility that the missile interceptors could be kept in the US until the system is switched on.
FT.com / Registration / Sign-up
"We Shall Never Surrender" Winston Churchill
Could you give some sources?
Exactly what I said earlier. The problem isn't the interceptors. It's the American presence. History shows that once Americans show up they don't leave easily. Communist revolution in Cuba didn't prevent the American base there from remaining there indefinetly.
My source was Lenta.ru - where the Russian web site specifically sad that American proposal was to include Russian specialists monitoring and even participating in the radar station. Unfortunately it was about 2 months ago and I don't have the links anymore. Russian counterproposal was Gabala radar station which is useless by any standards so the whole negotiation went nowhere.
As for Russian fears about Americans in Poland -Russia spoiled it's image in Eastern Europe so bad over the course of 45 years after WWII that Poles will sign a contract with devil, himself but not Russians after that - and this is not American fault in any way. Russia handled Eastern Europe and it's own republics with such a contempt and in a such evil way that as of now - no one wants to have anything in common with them or their policy.
Last edited by JohnFlint1985; 21 Nov 07, at 03:32.
"We Shall Never Surrender" Winston Churchill
I dont understand. They want a missile-defense system to protect themselves because of the missile-defense system? Heheheh...
If they have the missile-defense system, they have the missile-defense system? Does the US system in Poland not protect Poland? If not, where do the Poles plan to put their system? Turkey?
Air defence is not the same as missile defence.
They basically want Patriot systems and possible air patrols to secure their airspace against Russian aircraft.
HD Ready?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that 10 interceptor are only for ballistic missiles and can be threated by let's say Russian air strike to eliminate the perceived threat against Russia. So this is why Poles want air defense system (aka missile defense system) to make sure it will not happen. this is how I understand it.
"We Shall Never Surrender" Winston Churchill
Er...
No. Just no.air defense system (aka missile defense system)
HD Ready?
ok, you are right, i was wrong, i must have missed that thread.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin
Yup.
I enjoy being wrong too much to change my mind.
Nobody says that this missile defence can protect the US from Russian ICBM's but they can to a certain extent defend european nato states. 10 interceptors may become just a beginning, then the US will assume that Iran has 20 warheads, then 40 and so on...
Against what?.
IRBMs? Oh, hang on, they aren't supposed to exist any longer!
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As if you have some sort of right to destroy European NATO states without hindrance...
You will be able to do so simply by ICBMs from SSBNs in the Barents Sea or even further afield.
HD Ready?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Share this thread with friends: