Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles

reply to post by malganis


If it expands, yes, then we have a problem, but there's no evidence that the US plans to do so. If we arrive at that point and there is a major expansion of the system, I'd be much more receptive to Russia's argument. I'm not completely unsympathetic to their view on the issue as it stands now, but I simply don't see a threat in its current form.

Its like I said in an earlier thread. Both sides have a right to act in their own self-interest. Unfortunately, in this case, those self-interests are in conflict. I do not think there is a clear-cut right or wrong here.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by vor78]

reply to post by MischeviousElf


Nah. The Russians have been threatening Eastern Europe with nuclear destruction over this missile shield for a few years now. This article is from February 2007:

Article

"If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic take a decision to this effect, the strategic missile troops will be capable of having these facilities as targets," said Gen Nikolai Solovtsov, commander of Russia's missile forces.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by vor78]

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by MischeviousElf

 

Nah. The Russians have been threatening Eastern Europe with nuclear destruction over this missile shield for a few years now. This article is from February 2007:

Article

"If the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic take a decision to this effect, the strategic missile troops will be capable of having these facilities as targets," said Gen Nikolai Solovtsov, commander of Russia's missile forces.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by vor78]

Thank you,
Please though what im trying to get at is the nuance, the hidden meanings behind all these statements.

Indeed in your quote the word "strategic" and "missile" is there but not the big word the real message "nuclear"

Those strategic missile's could be carrying conventional warheads, like a Scud, which is a strategic rocket.

Of course by making those statements they are intending to imply the nuclear option, but that is part of the game of state manship!

As I said I think this is the first time they have directly threatened using those terms European country for a very very long time!


Kind Regards,

Elf

there is a good thread on ATS about the feeling of what it is to be awake. Well then wake up! you people still don't see thru the illusion. there is no cold war, never has been- this is manufactured propaganda by the elites. These people control all sides to get what they want-

Russia is being so bold in part because of the US monetary situation. We are a powder keg of financial problems, and the only thing keeping our currency afloat is the naive countries who are willing to keep buying our debt. The fact is Russia knows that we can never repay our outstanding debt. Russia knows that it will just be a matter of time before we experience hyperinflation. All it will take is for countries like China/Japan to wake up and realize that their economies will be better off without us, in the long run, they are going to have to cut their losses.

This is why Russia is so confident as of lately, does anyone remember about 6 months ago Russia/China publicly told their citizens to diversify and liquidate all of their US/Dollar based assets? They know it's just a matter of time before we will be so busy with turmoil in our own country, that they'll be able to flex their muscles.

The American public is going to have to pay for all of the terrible mismanagement of government and the Fed over the last 30 or so years. I think Russia knows this. It's not a matter of IF, it's a matter of WHEN.

-cheers

I'm sure Poland is afraid of Russia, Russia is as a threat to all us in the EU as Canada is to the USA.
Who the hell comes up with these scripts anyway?
If we were so afraid we would put our own missiles ourselves, fuc* you very much...

Take away the millions of $US given to Poland in this deal and let's see where Poland tells the US to stick their missiles into.

Endless propaganda, just to make Russia so pissed they don't have any other option but to fight back. Textbook #...

reply to post by MischeviousElf


The key here is going to be the use of the word 'strategic'. 'Strategic forces' is the polite way of saying 'nuclear forces' in diplomatic circles.

Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces

The same guy who commands their nuclear forces made the statement I quoted earlier. It was a nuclear threat.

I recommend that Russia nuke Poland now than later if they want to prevent any deployment of the defense system.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by MischeviousElf

 

The key here is going to be the use of the word 'strategic'. 'Strategic forces' is the polite way of saying 'nuclear forces' in diplomatic circles.

Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces

The same guy who commands their nuclear forces made the statement I quoted earlier. It was a nuclear threat.

No im afraid you should read my post and equate yourself with modern Diplomatic History.

It was as I stated a "veiled" threat, the assumption is on the recipient taking that conclusion.

My friend no statements such as these, especially in relation to this most important issue, are spoken officially without endless script checking and creation, the words checked for their meaning from the top of the Kremlin.

I stand by my Premise!

The word "nuclear" has now been used as a direct military threat, in Europe, for the first time in many many years.

I can see you don't see the distinction, but diplomatically IMHO it is important.

Kind Regards

Elf.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by MischeviousElf]

reply to post by Daedalus24


I don't think that many of us (at least myself as a U.S. citizen) is saying that the Russians are innocent. I'm simply trying to explain what seems to be happening. It appears that there are more people involved with encouraging Georgia into taking action against the S. Ossetian area. Be it the U.S. or certain few within the government it just appears to have been orchestrated in that manner.

Now, with the U.S., Russia's biggest rival obviously, getting the go ahead to place a missile complex in Poland, Russia's neighbors, how would you take it? Seriously, it's similar with the Cuban missile crisis. We didn't want Russia putting missiles in Cuba. What the hell is the difference if we are putting them right next door?

You see, I'm sick and tired of this view that WE are the only ones allowed to do what we want. It's a 'do as I say' not 'as I do' mentality. All it does is cause friction between the U.S. and other countries. It gives the ones that already have a hatred for us more fodder to put in their cannons. It emboldens them to take action thus beginning a potential third world war.

It's not about who's right or who's wrong. Russia has a right to their sovereignty as much as we do. When my enemy puts missiles in my back yard I am going to act. Unless they let me put ours in their back yard.

We have been surrounding them with missile complexes for years and now it's going to finally come to a crux. Either we stop this idiocy or we will end up in war where everyone loses.

Plain and simple.

It has nothing to do with us supporting Russia. We support our country but we do NOT support these aggressions.

From a strictly geographical perspective, i have a difficult time believing this missile system placement is anything more than a warning sign to Russia. The only rogue nation cited in any reports on this has been Iran, which in looking at the map, seems to be quite a ways off. I believe there are plenty of other locations in a better strategic position to ward off Iran's "arsenal" of weapons. Yes i might be talking very simplistically here, which is my point, but given the face value of things, the intended "target" of this defense system is pretty apparent.

likewise, who is to say what exactly is this missile defense system anyway? missiles that intercept other missiles. soooo, its a missile that can not be used on anything else in the entire world other than another missile? there is no way to retrofit them to say be used on planes? ground targets? to me, this reeks of being a platform for anything the US gov't says. all that's left is to somehow spin this into the terrorism vernacular and its off to the races.

i do so miss the cloak and dagger stories of the 1980s. not the mass destruction part, but the spy stories always made me think.

Originally posted by Blacknapkins
Russia is being so bold in part because of the US monetary situation. We are a powder keg of financial problems, and the only thing keeping our currency afloat is the naive countries who are willing to keep buying our debt. The fact is Russia knows that we can never repay our outstanding debt. Russia knows that it will just be a matter of time before we experience hyperinflation. All it will take is for countries like China/Japan to wake up and realize that their economies will be better off without us, in the long run, they are going to have to cut their losses.

Okay. You talk boldly about our economic situation (which I do not disagree with) but you don't really take Russia's economic situation into account.

If we here think it is bad with the rich getting richer then you have no clue as to what is going on in Russia. Sure, they get tons of cash from their oil pipeline. However, the bulk of that goes to the few. The rest goes to their military. They are in a near desparate situation too. Sure, they could cause mayhem and shut off the pipeline. However, within 2 weeks they would be financially crippled. They need the west more than the west needs them. Without that money they would die. Period. I mean, what else is coming out of that country for exports? I can't think of anything else.

Russia is only trying to flaunt their 'might' right now after walking all over a small country like Georgia.
They are not stupid enough to attack Poland. all talk. unless their president & putin are insane... hmmm, good chance there too I suppose.

reply to post by Unnoan


If you seen the missile defense system on the tests, you understand why they chose Poland or Czechslovakia and not right next to Iran like Iraq or Turkey. The missile defense system needs time to get into orbit, launch the kinetic warhead and meet the enemy missile head on. Not go after it from behind. It be too late.

Originally posted by dariousg
Okay. You talk boldly about our economic situation (which I do not disagree with) but you don't really take Russia's economic situation into account.

>snip< Without that money they would die. Period. I mean, what else is coming out of that country for exports? I can't think of anything else.

I know a man down the Pub, Dimitri,

he is doing a very lucrative line in the following,

Young Blond Pretty things!

Much opium and its derivatives!

Need a new Kidney? hes the man! still warm if you like!

Want to smuggle Chinese fruit pickers into Europe?

I hear too he has a few brand new AK's as well.

I wouldn't recommend the Rolex watches, mine went from gold to green in just 2 months!

Dimitri outside the Fox on Hounds on the a46 in the UK. Cant miss him usually selling duty free vodka in the carpark when the landlord is away. However mate if you fancy a tipple of that, compare it to your antifreeze in the car first!

Kind Regards,

Elf

Only as the topic could do with some humor in this mad world today!

[edit on 15-8-2008 by MischeviousElf]

reply to post by Daedalus24


from waaaaaaaaay back in july...

Russia's security proposal doesn't threaten NATO, official says

reply to post by MischeviousElf


Yes, if you want to get into the actual diplomacy side, there will be some difference between the use of the words nuclear and strategic. In fact, I indicated this above and that diplomatically, strategic is more acceptable and does not carry quite the same weight. But from a practical standpoint, its like arguing over what the definition of 'is' actually is.


[edit on 15-8-2008 by vor78]

didnt see anyone address this

but the missile shield meens squat all against russia and vice versa for the US if one was placed for the US, same with uk and france and other countries with Subs which have ICBMs

unless these can magicaly shoot down missile shot from subs then they are a threat, other then that russia, US and so on can launch a nuke from anywhere and in most cases the missile wont have to leave the atnesphere to reach its target.


Missile shield is a waste of money
not like it can stop real threats anyway (well the boogey men)


[edit on 15-8-2008 by bodrul]

Originally posted by deltaboy
reply to post by Unnoan

 

If you seen the missile defense system on the tests, you understand why they chose Poland or Czechslovakia and not right next to Iran like Iraq or Turkey. The missile defense system needs time to get into orbit, launch the kinetic warhead and meet the enemy missile head on. Not go after it from behind. It be too late.

good point, and i'll admit i am not in the know when it comes to military tests and statistics. However, last i checked, Iran has no long range missile capability which would seem to indicate a shorter range missile defense would be more appropriate and thus a smaller zone of intercept. seems only Russia and possibly N. Korea have long range. but that's neither here nor there. good points, when i have time i'll have to read up on it.

missile shield in poland a threat? how? is everyone forgetting that most russia ICMB's are aimed north and east? NOT west..

but even then, poland would not be safe in a russian missile barrage with that system anyways; do you think it impossible for russia to disable this system in the event of war or to overwhelm their country?

lets not forget who we are talking about here.