The Lotus Cars Community banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,002 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I think face-saving saber rattling. Still, disturbing:

<embed src="http://services.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1137883380" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=1733221837&playerId=1137883380&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&domain=embed&autoStart=false&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,713 Posts
Same here. If they want to make themselves the overnight pariah of the world, let them launch even the smallest of tactical nukes into Poland. It should and will scare everyone else in the neighborhood, and get the Security Council up in arms. What they would do to rectify the situation is another story altogether. However, this isn't a new issue; Russia has stuck to their guns for years on this missile defense system stalemate.

I now await the obligatory "Russia's actions wouldn't be any worse than what Bush has done." post. :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,002 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Interesting, that the US gave Russia a way out, saying that the system was put in place to defend against "rouge states." Is Russia - in light of the situation in Georgia - more upset that the defensive system in question was built by Russia, or perhaps that the deal gives the Poles US assistance with their air defenses? Either way, this is remarkably bad timing all around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,000 Posts
I doubt anyone would truely believe that they're not considering the proximity of the new interceptors to russia as a side bonus if not the biggest reason, and that iran not having ICBM capabilities is just part of the overall cake, last time i heard they could barely reach western europe and they spent billions on installations in california and alaska to counter any north korean threat, real or otherwise.

A lot of poles aren't too happy about it, since they'd be firmly in the sites of first strikes and can be reached, whereas the country installing them can't.

This is a long read, but covers the various stances and who counter who.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34051.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,002 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I doubt anyone would truely believe that they're not considering the proximity of the new interceptors to russia as a side bonus if not the biggest reason, and that iran not having ICBM capabilities is just part of the overall cake, last time i heard they could barely reach western europe and they spent billions on installations in california and alaska to counter any north korean threat, real or otherwise.

A lot of poles aren't too happy about it, since they'd be firmly in the sites of first strikes and can be reached, whereas the country installing them can't.

This is a long read, but covers the various stances and who counter who.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34051.pdf
"According to unclassified U.S. intelligence assessments, Iran may be able to test an ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) or long-range ballistic missile capability by 2015 if it receives foreign assistance, such as from Russia or China. Many in Congress and elsewhere share this specific assessment, or that the potential threat may not emerge by 2015 but is sufficiently worrisome to begin addressing it now. "

I haven't finished reading the report yet, but, while I'm as cynical as they come with regards to U.S. Intelligence assesments, I find the above explanation more plausible than the belief that 10 silos in Poland could serve as an effective deterrent against Russia's rather sizable arsenal...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,000 Posts
So Iran might be able to develop super expensive ICBM missles that few other countries have, if another country comes along and helps them out, and do it without anyone knowing, and based on that installing multi billion dollar missile silos in other counties is what to do, on top of the many multi billion dollar silos currently in effect. Do we recall the WMD thing ? Its all the extra stuff, monitoring equipment, they put in the silo i think Russia is mainly concerned with, not the interceptors themselves.

There is no evidence they're doing it, its difficult to test ICBM capabilties without one of the many spy networks finding out, look at India and North Korea for instance, if the radars or satellites don't pick it up, some good old social engineering will, even if the russians sell them to Iran what then ? If ICBMs are ever used, it'll be devastating to the world as a whole, you're talking 11,000 km for the best ICBMs i know about, wheres the threat to US soil there ?

Sure you can say, lets throw everything in we can in case something happens, but you'll run out of money soon enough its a loosing battle, technology could appear tomorrow that destroys the capabilities of all interceptors or ICBMs in five minutes, or some other type of warfare, they know that, thats why i think it has little to do with potential future threats and more about current allegiances, money and surveillance.


I don't really see a lot of difference in the claim of the 1970s that burning fossil fuels is causing an ice age, vs it causing global warming now, in the sense of that its just the means to an end. I think its just one of the decoy techniques used to hide the real event, which is probably more about oil or other commodity than anything else.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,713 Posts
Russia didn't forget Poland, unfortunately.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
654 Posts
A missile defense system could be considered provacative since it destabilizes a status quo. Remember when Ronald Reagan wanted to develop SDI? The Soviets were very worried about this. That's one of the reasons Reagan said he would share the technology of the system with any other nation, to maintain military stability.

Imagine if you are playing a game of "chicken". As you are speeding towards your opponent, you notice that the driver of the other car throws out his steering wheel. He has destabilized the situation of the game, making it so that his option of turning away is gone. You know he won't turn away, so you have to decide whether you want to die or back down. If one nation or group of nations has a missile defense sheild and the other opposing nations do not, the lacking nations need to decide if they are going to "rip out their steering wheel as well as rip out their brake pedal, to prove that they aren't going to back down and they can't stop their car".

I don't feel as bad about commenting in a political thread on this website since I was able to use an automobile analogy to get my point across.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,812 Posts
A lot of poles aren't too happy about it, since they'd be firmly in the sites of first strikes and can be reached, whereas the country installing them can't.
You are correct about the popular opinion (same for the Czechs) - my wife's family shares much of the same sentiments as the rest of the country: "leave us alone." Not sure this situation would matter anyway, Poland is always the first stop for any imperialistic growth on the continent.

Russia has been pushing the envelope for quite some time - buzzing our aircraft carriers and also breaching into our aerial territory (notably in Alaska) despite many warnings. This is all a game to garner attention - just as their latest ruse in Georgia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
Mutual assured destruction. Tom Lehrer - We will all go together when we go!


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/frAEmhqdLFs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/frAEmhqdLFs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
Tom Lehrer - So long, mom (a song for world war III)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pklr0UD9eSo&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pklr0UD9eSo&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,115 Posts
Interesting, that the US gave Russia a way out, saying that the system was put in place to defend against "rouge states." Is Russia - in light of the situation in Georgia - more upset that the defensive system in question was built by Russia, or perhaps that the deal gives the Poles US assistance with their air defenses? Either way, this is remarkably bad timing all around.
true but poland is about as far as you can get from a rouge state, i can understand some of the issues with georgia - but poland and subsequently czech and slovakia and the ukraine are seriously well establish.

putin and company are just pushing to find out where the political boundries are - like when they shut off gas to ukraine, they will never stop this - they will allways push, sometimes too far, but then back out a little and next time it doesn't seem so bad - modern russia are THE experts at playing the political power card with success. they have scavanged their country of privatly own industry taken to state run, and they will press as absolutly hard as the world can tolerate with their influence in boundries, pricing, and political influence by thoose terms and force.

i still seriously suspect that if the us doesn't get its act together russia and china will come to terms.. and then its pretty much game over if that relationship can be managed long term.

anyways - russia would not launch nukes into poland - that would be a show stopper in all kinds of ways... i suspect they just want to establish that they "can" and "would" - political 101 - authority vs use of power. you have to have real power to excercise the authority without use. so thats what russia is struggling with... they don't have an "iraq" to show the world what they are capable of, and so they are trying to accomplish that demonstration as best they can.

oddly - for the us the iraq thing has a bit backfired where there is a loss of will to use force, and the row questions that while we have the military force, we may not have the judgment use it to proper effect - i.e. "losing the war" again as it were.

stalins bear is wakening, and widely supported by its people.
 

·
Registered
2006 Lotus Elise
Joined
·
1,108 Posts
One point to consider is that Russia had sold missile technology to Syria and Iran, which the interceptor system in Poland is intended to protect the US against - its installaton is almost like a silent middle finger from US to Russia.

Another point is that Superpower Russia is tired of being ignored - the US could have actually collaborated with Russia to defend against rogue nation threat, but chose not to. So Russia built another road into international spotlight.

Ether way, I still think Poland chose the right alliance. I lived in Poland under Russia before '87. Two words describe the relationship: violation and subordination.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,002 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
true but poland is about as far as you can get from a rouge state, i can understand some of the issues with georgia - but poland and subsequently czech and slovakia and the ukraine are seriously well establish.
I think you misunderstood me - Poland would be HOSTING the system. By rouge," they're talking about Iraq, N. Korea, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,002 Posts
Discussion Starter #19 (Edited)
We are in no position whatsoever to criticize any other country period it comes to illegal and immoral warfare. Saying our missiles are there to protect from 'rogue nations' is ridiculous in the first place. Only a fearful child could believe that any longer.
I couldn't disagree more. The (illegal) actions of an administration do not justify relinquishing our responsibility to protect ourselves and our interests, whether those lie in the area national defense or human rights. Should we remain silent about the atrocities in Darfur, the Congo, Georgia, etc?

Additionally, are you saying that because we were (wrongly) told there were WMD in Iraq, the concept of rouge nations becomes a myth? I fail to see what one fantasy has to do with other realities.

If I call the police and report that a neighbor has an illegal gun, and he in fact does not, does that make it impossible that another of my neighbors may possess an illegal handgun?

BTW, those missiles are purely defensive. Why do you think we want them there?
 

·
Registered
2006 Lotus Elise
Joined
·
1,108 Posts
Alan is right. Russia knows it could easily overwhelm a 10 missile defense system with the thousands of nuclear warheads they have at their disposal - they can simply launch eleven.

Russia states they are more worried about the possibility of expansion of the system once it is in place. In reality, they are probably more worried about how they appear globally since they just got slapped in the face by Poland, previously their subordinate.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top