Putin suggests a new location for US ABM system

Originally posted by deltaboy
The system is useless .

This is the very same system that couldn't hit a target when it was pointed out to it. Seems like a piss poor program to start another arms race/cold war over... but hey this is the bush administration we are talking about... long on arrogance and short on brains.

Originally posted by grover

Originally posted by deltaboy
The system is useless .

This is the very same system that couldn't hit a target when it was pointed out to it. Seems like a piss poor program to start another arms race/cold war over... but hey this is the bush administration we are talking about... long on arrogance and short on brains.

If its obviously 'piss-poor' and an obvious failure, then why the Russian concern?

It seems to me that by using your logic, the Russians are clearly the aggressor, reacting irresponsibly and unreasonably to a system that, if you are correct, poses them no threat whatsoever.

But its the US's fault anyway.

Originally posted by vor78
I guess I'll ask the obvious question: How does Azerbaijan feel about this proposal? The governments of Poland and the Czech Republic asked for it. Does Azerbaijan feel the same way?

Azerbaijan wouldn't be against it, if it means that the US government will support the current despotic regime. US already financed a new Caspian pipeline project in Azerbaijan worth billions of dollars.

Russia could easily overwhelm the system with the shear numbers of missiles they have. We have offered before to allow Russia to participate in the program and they refused.

Russia, U.S. agree on missile defense dialogue-1

Originally posted by ludaChris
Ok, so the 10-20 ABM batteries are a threat to the thousands of Russian missiles? I don't think so, but the points Putin made were good as to the reasons to relocate to Azerbajan.

No the current ABM technology which is due to be installed in Europe is not a threat to Russian ballistic missile capabilities. This was never the issue and Russia never argued that this is the issue. The problem is that is just the start, and the hardest step is the first one. The radar installations can be easily upgraded in the future to monitor Russian airspace. Missile installations would likely be increased in the upcoming years, and gradually substatuted with newer and newer technologies. American air bases in those nations could very likely follow soon after. And in a decade or two you will have a new arsenal of weapons, some possible becoming offensive and not just defensive on Russia's doorstep.

Do you honestly think US will install a dozen of ABM batteries and leave them be? It is just a start, and what is follow is more than obvious, especially for Russia which is used to NATO expansion around it since the 90's. The arguement is not, and never was about 10 lousy ABMs. It's about US's plans for Eastern Europe, and how these plans concern Russia and other non-NATO countries.

What if Russia decides to place ABM batteries, radars, and other infrastructure of defensive nature in Mexico or Venezuela or Cuba today? Oh they'll tell you it's all defensive, and has absolutely nothing to do with US. I mean Russia could be fearing a nuclear attack from Canada. And if they just look like ABMs they got to be ABMs right? I mean it's not like Russia will be disguising them as ABMs but placing God-knows-what in those installationg. Will US sit and watch Russia do as it pleases in its backyard?

Originally posted by ludaChris
-It would cover all of Europe as opposed to the smaller portion it would cover in Poland and the Czech Republic.

The only nations the ABM installations in Czech Republic really protect considering a missile launch from Iran, are the Baltics and Scandinavia. And don't you just know it- that the first nations Iran will attack with the few missiles they might have in the next decade would be those? And isn't it just nice that US cares so much about the baltics and Scandinavia, and not about itself (since missiles launched from Iran at US would have a completely different trajectory). It is obvious that those placements have nothing to do with Iran.

Originally posted by ludaChris
But he is asking wayyyyyyyy too much if he wants the defensive program to be transparent to the Russians.

Yes he is, and Russia cannot realistically expect the US to allow this. But if you want to enter negotiations you got to start with an exaggerated offer and work your way down. Although at this point it seems that US is hell-bent on placing those missiles in Eastern Europe, and would be unwilling to yeild anything to Russia. But then Russia has a few key cards itself when it comes to negotiations (Kosovo, SAM sales to Syria and Iran, arms deals with India, oil, etc.). This is no longer the 90's when US did what it pleased when it pleased, and couldn't care less about anyone else's interests.

Originally posted by ludaChris
You think Russia would do that for the US on such a program?

Probably not, but then Russia is not the one placing such technologies in any other nations. Nor is it the one that is quickly expanding it's military and political influence around a potential Cold War enemy.

Originally posted by ludaChris
Russia is more concerned about losing their traditional sphere of influence than anything, that is very clear at this point.

They already lost most of it thanks to US diligent efforts. Now it is all about regaining the lost ground, or possibly looking into alternative allies and unlikely partners (Venezuela, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, India, Syria, and Iran).

Originally posted by ludaChris
Ok, and the Russian president is just an angel himself

I was being sarcastic. And Putin certainly looks smarter and more fit for politics than Bush. Political persona is all about projecting power and being able to pressure others with the right strategy. Putin might project a bad vibe to others, but that doesn't stop the fact that others have to negotiate and communicate with him at some point. And when this happens it's not about the vibe he projects, but the political knowledge and skill he has. And Putin is certainly a great improvement compared to Yeltsin. Maybe next time Russia can elect a kindergarten teacher who looks like Fred Rogers as President. Will that make you feel better about him? Will that make US and the West back off with its accussation about the terrible and scary Kremlin leader?

Originally posted by ludaChris
Its clear that neither side trusts the other, so lets not make this a thread about the two nations presidents.

Well most people on here often do. As soon as there is talk about Russia, Putin's persona and KGB past comes to play. That's why I was being sarcastic.

Originally posted by maloy
Well most people on here often do. As soon as there is talk about Russia, Putin's persona and KGB past comes to play. That's why I was being sarcastic.

Gotcha. No worries, probably wasn't even worth it for me to state the obvious.

Originally posted by vor78
I guess I'll ask the obvious question: How does Azerbaijan feel about this proposal? The governments of Poland and the Czech Republic asked for it. Does Azerbaijan feel the same way?

vor78 brings up a very good point; has anyone even considered how these other countries feel about all this. We have not even heard from them and wouldn't having one of these systems in your backyard make you a little nervous? I mean you would become a prime target for attack then.




It's all one big chess game.....or a game called Risk.

Originally posted by ludaChris


Ok, so the 10-20 ABM batteries are a threat to the thousands of Russian missiles? I don't think so, but the points Putin made were good as to the reasons to relocate to Azerbajan.

sorry if this has been said already.

10-20 ABM batteries would not directly threaten the thousands of russian missiles, true. But 10-20 ABM batteries in conjunction with the many strategic US nuclear focres in Europe, and at sea certainly would.

In the event of a nuclear exchange, if the US takes out most of russia's land based missiles, the few remaining could be picked off by the ABMS.

Edit to add: My girlfriend just came back from Poland. She explained to me how things are apparently slated to work. The US would basically hold the ABMS in name only. The cost to build and upkeep the shield would be paid for by Poland. The soldiers and personelle (minus some technical support) that run the ABMS would also be Polish. Meaning virtually all the cost and all the risk is picked up by Poland. While the administration would be run by the US. Good deal for the US, no?


Second Edit: Changed wording.
[edit on 7-6-2007 by InSpiteOf]



[edit on 7-6-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
sorry if this has been said already.

10-20 ABM batteries would not directly threaten the thousands of russian missiles, true. But 10-20 ABM batteries in conjunction with the many strategic US nuclear focres in Europe, and at sea certainly would.

In the event of a nuclear exchange, if the US takes out most of russia's land based missiles, the few remaining would easily be picked off by the ABMS.
[edit on 7-6-2007 by InSpiteOf]

But as far as I know, the system would be composed of PAC-3 and THAAD missile batteries. Both are kinetic kill vehicles, though the PAC-3 has a small explosive charge. And THAAD had quite a few setbacks in its development and funding in the 90's(but with more succeses as of late), and the PAC-3 having made marked improvements over the PAC-2 in terms of coverage area and such, but I wouldn't bank on it having that great of success against even theater threats. You can't give any system a 100% kill ratio, it's man made and ABM technology, I feel hasn't really gotten off the ground yet in terms of a truly successful system.

Originally posted by ludaChris
You can't give any system a 100% kill ratio, it's man made and ABM technology, I feel hasn't really gotten off the ground yet in terms of a truly successful system.

Your absolutely right, i shouldnt have made it sound as if the AMBS had a 100% killrate, and will fix my previous statement accordingly.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by InSpiteOf]

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Your absolutely right, i shouldnt have made it sound as if the AMBS had a 100% killrate, and will fix my previous statement accordingly.

[edit on 7-6-2007 by InSpiteOf]

I didn't have any beef with the statement. I understood your point, that even if 100% accurate it wouldn't be a threat to Russian missile forces. But ok, thanks for taking note anyhow. I hope this thread doesn't die, I've never started a really long one before.

Discussed here from another stance
www.abovetopsecret.com...'

Its a pretty good idea, but are the US willing to accept russia learning about there technology? its a coldwar spies dream...

the whole idea of the cold war, was the basis on who's country got the upper hand first, who ultimately had the ability to disable the others ability to strike....

those interceptor missles in europe, gives the US an upper hand against russia's ability to retaliate, in turn russia will be forced to come up with a way for it to gain back its advantage... its been at nice stalemate lately, thats the peace we need to live in.

Maybe the onus is on us, to create a method of missile defense that can come in from the side, instead of head on.. or even from underneath straight up?

But its encouraging to see, for the first time since 1999, a president has taken on another countries recomendations, instead of dictating how its going to be... Lets see what Shrub comes back with...

Originally posted by vor78

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
I personally don't understand why the U.S doesn't just set it up in the U.S and not worry about putting it in other countries.

The problem is that many of these countries have asked the US to set up the ABM system on their soil. Its tough to turn away a country asking for a means to protect itself from a possible nuclear missile strike. Granted, we all know that western Europe is a much more likely target if it happens, but given the potential consequences, it is difficult to say no. And what if you do say no, and it happens?

If the Czech Republic, Poland and Latvia still want the system, morally, I don't think I could turn them away. By the same token, I couldn't make the system unavailable to countries without the resources to build such a system of their own. If these smaller countries want it, it should be available to them.

lol don't give everybody that american ^superman^ speech

america is acting out of it's own interests by wanting to set up a 'son of stars wars' defence system on european soil, i just hope britain isn't apart of it.


[edit on 8-6-2007 by st3ve_o]

That's merely my own reason for believing that the US should share the technology with other nations. I'm not quite naive enough to believe that the US has purely altruistic motives in this situation. It is acting in its own self-interests, as well it should. Any nation should. That said, its self-interests and those of the nations in question seem to coincide.

Should there be a "mistake" the whole ABM systems deployed in Romania, Poland, South Korea and Japan would be destroyed in a matter of 20 minutes without notice in a combined simultaneous strike.
All these ABM installations are targeted 24/7 in every screech and every move they make, already for some time.

originally posted by: Flanker86
Should there be a "mistake" the whole ABM systems deployed in Romania, Poland, South Korea and Japan would be destroyed in a matter of 20 minutes without notice in a combined simultaneous strike.
All these ABM installations are targeted 24/7 in every screech and every move they make, already for some time.

You realize that this is an 11 year old thread no?