Russia suspends arms treaty -- The World War III Wheels are in Motion.

Originally posted by West Coast
Or we can blame russias bullying of former satellite states, thus causing them to seek protection from the United States.

Protection in the form of missile batteries, which will have Russia target them with ballistic missiles, and mass conventional forces on their border?

That doesn't sound like protection to me. In fact that sounds like the opposite of protection.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Lets see if I have this straight. Putin is upset because the U.S. is installing a defensive system and NOT an offensive system like actually building ballistic missile sites.

Defence can easily be used for offence, if the defensive structure is built in the opponents base, or close to it - where their units would have to move through.

Likewise, this system would have the capability of shooting down ballistic missiles launched from, I am sure, several hundred ballistic and nuclear missiles sites in European Russia.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFanWell, tough cookies!! He needs to get over it. Who is Putin to tell other countries what they can or cannot install on their land.

Get a grip.

Actually he can. Many agreements signed during the end of the Cold War involve special conditions and promises made by both USA, NATO and Russia, over what they will do. One of those promises by NATO, is that they will never militarise Warsaw Pact countries, and will keep all NATO influence out of them, to maintain balance and peace in Europe.
This agreement, is being broken by the Bush Administration in a very formal way, and hence the reason why Putin suspended this conventional forces treaty, because this was Russia's end of the deal - and as USA/NATO have broken theirs, it would be nothing but stupid for Russia to honour this broken agreement.

Originally posted by mad scientist
The Russians are as dirty as they come. They committed an act of war on the Ukraine by trying to assassinate their president using poison. Russia is nothing, they are trying to act tough but can't really back it up. If it wasn't for a nuclear arsenal they would be seen as more of a joke.

False false and false. The poison used on Yushchenko takes approximately three days to take effect, yet in his incident, it did so the very next day, after he dined with the alleged Russian agent whom poisoned him. This is impossible - and he was NOT poisoned by Russia, but in fact by himself, to gain political control and win the Ukranian elections. Worked well too, and with no long-term health consequences for him. Sure his face looks rubbish, but so what?

[edit on 11-11-2007 by Manincloak]

Originally posted by Manincloak
Likewise, this system would have the capability of shooting down ballistic missiles launched from, I am sure, several hundred ballistic and nuclear missiles sites in European Russia.

Do you're saying Russia's hundreds of ICBM's are so crappy that it wouls only take the 12 ABM missiles to shoot them all down. Do some reading about the systme being installed for gods sake.

Actually he can. Many agreements signed during the end of the Cold War involve special conditions and promises made by both USA, NATO and Russia, over what they will do. One of those promises by NATO, is that they will never militarise Warsaw Pact countries, and will keep all NATO influence out of them, to maintain balance and peace in Europe.
This agreement, is being broken by the Bush Administration in a very formal way, and hence the reason why Putin suspended this conventional forces treaty, because this was Russia's end of the deal - and as USA/NATO have broken theirs, it would be nothing but stupid for Russia to honour this broken agreement.

Really, sounds like completel BS. Why don't you back this with a link to the agreement rather than making things up.

False false and false. The poison used on Yushchenko takes approximately three days to take effect, yet in his incident, it did so the very next day, after he dined with the alleged Russian agent whom poisoned him. This is impossible - and he was NOT poisoned by Russia, but in fact by himself, to gain political control and win the Ukranian elections. Worked well too, and with no long-term health consequences for him. Sure his face looks rubbish, but so what?

Gee you are bariwashed. Everyone knows it was Russia. As I said they are as dirty as it comes. Russia is th lowest of the moral low. Poisoned himself, now that's a good one.
It's no screst the majority of Ukrainians despise Russia.

[edit on 11-11-2007 by mad scientist]

I don’t believe there will be a World War III because of Mutual Assured Destruction (in spite of GWB’s belief that he’s an agent of the Rapture through Armageddon). Rather, I see it as an economic war.

Reagan used Starwars and other arms production in the arms race to spend the USSR into bankruptcy. However, Russia is now relatively wealthy because of their oil reserves. China owns much of the U.S. national debt, now at nine trillion dollars.

The U.S. is presently the big guy on the block, but we are extremely vulnerable. I suggest that this is the strategy that’s being followed.

1. Russia rejects the missile treaty so they start building missiles and silos. This forces the U.S. into an arms race. We shift our industries to weapons at the expense of our normal production and buy our needs from other countries.

2. China dumps U.S. dollars causing the dollar to become almost worthless. Now, we can’t buy our needs from overseas, and our production is not geared to supply our economy.

3. China, Arabia, Japan, and Russia come in and buy our industries with the promise to convert them to peacetime functions. However, that requires that all unions be disbanded, and the minimum wage be eliminated.

At this point, the U.S. is no threat. Of course, there is an advantage. We would no longer have to worry about illegal immigration because there would be no jobs here that paid more than the other third world countries.

Occam

Russia has every right to suspend these treaties, and to develop new military technologies including ballistical delivery systems. It has the right not because such actions are ethical, or beneficial to the world, or justified, etc. - but because no one can dictate to it what it should or should not do. Who dictates actions that it can and cannot not do to the US or to NATO? Where are the checks and balances? What keeps US from developing new weapons with destructive potential we can only wonder about? The US public? Since when has the US public prevented the US government from doing anything that jeopardizes world stability? US public can lament continuously after the fact, and protest, and then protest somemore. But they can't do squat about the US foreign policy, which has not become any less aggressive during the last 50 years.


US dictated what Russia could and could not do in the 90's because Russia had no economic or political stability or foundation whatsoever. It depended on US/European loans and subsidies and support. Now that it is acquiring both - economic and political stability (regardless of how you perceive this stability - it is progressively improving) it has no incentive to listen to the US anymore.

Face it - US runs the world only as long as it is a threat to someone - either economic, political, or military. When the US ceases to be a credible threat to some nation - Russia, China, India - those nations begin to test their new freedom on the world stage. You successfully kept Russia down in the 90's - congratulations. You were the king of the hill. All those post Soviet-collapse treaties were only meant to weaken Russia in every way, while the US and its allies found creative ways around them, having the means and the will to do it.

This is no precedent for any World War III. It is simply Russia doing what it needs to do for its own benefit - nothing more nothing less. Don't like it? Write to Putin about it. It is not invading anyone. It is not threatening anyone. It is simply developing the military capabilities at which it was best at. If you can't compete with the US in military aviation or navy and aircraft carriers, then you compete with it based on you comparative advantage - and for Russia that advantage is its relatively cheap, reliable, and oh-so-scary ballistic missiles. Whether you are killed and your city bombed into oblivion by smart bombs dropped from a stealth bomber, or by a nuclear missile - do you really care?

[edit on 11-11-2007 by maloy]

Originally posted by Occam
I don’t believe there will be a World War III because of Mutual Assured Destruction (in spite of GWB’s belief that he’s an agent of the Rapture through Armageddon). Rather, I see it as an economic war.

What mutual assured destruction? Was that ever more than a political tool to disarm one country or another and if not why did the USSR/Russia never comply by doing away with it's civil and both active and passive defenses?

Reagan used Starwars and other arms production in the arms race to spend the USSR into bankruptcy.

But the USSR was not spent in bankruptcy and it's relatively widely admitted that the US had no capacity to do so in the 80's when the USSR's military machinery were strategically far better equipped to fight and win a protracted nuclear war. .

However, Russia is now relatively wealthy because of their oil reserves. China owns much of the U.S. national debt, now at nine trillion dollars.

The citizens of Russia are now much wealthier , than in 1999, due to oil wealth but the military generally kept spending money on what would allow them to maintain strategic superiority.

The U.S. is presently the big guy on the block, but we are extremely vulnerable. I suggest that this is the strategy that’s being followed.

The Russian federation is in my reading and opinion more capable of winning a world war IF the US made a overt aggressive move and the Russian public can be convinced of that fact.

1. Russia rejects the missile treaty so they start building missiles and silos. This forces the U.S. into an arms race. We shift our industries to weapons at the expense of our normal production and buy our needs from other countries.

The US military complex is the one industry that has remained largely unscathed so the one thing the US could probably do relatively well is arm itself given suitable funding from somewhere.

2. China dumps U.S. dollars causing the dollar to become almost worthless. Now, we can’t buy our needs from overseas, and our production is not geared to supply our economy.

I think it will take more than a Chinese effort considering how much debt is held by Japan and others.

3. China, Arabia, Japan, and Russia come in and buy our industries with the promise to convert them to peacetime functions. However, that requires that all unions be disbanded, and the minimum wage be eliminated.

That's been happening since the 70's.

At this point, the U.S. is no threat. Of course, there is an advantage

The US is in my opinion at this stage only a threat to third world powers and that's why it chooses to go after only third world powers. When it ran into the remains of a first world power over Serbian skies it's shortcomings were very quickly exposed.

.

We would no longer have to worry about illegal immigration because there would be no jobs here that paid more than the other third world countries.

Occam

Well i doubt that will happen as such deprivation is bound to encourage American union organizers to redouble their efforts. Whatever happens i am quite sure the American people will only put up with so much abuse before they take to the streets and make governance very hard. I think the democratic voters have a relatively good idea of what might be happening and as soon as the average republican voters figure out that their 'leaders' do NOT stand for individual rights things will start to go up in flames. I think this has already started to happen and it will become increasingly clear as the central government is forced to erode civil liberties to keep control of people that are becoming increasingly impoverished.

Stellar