Well, when it comes to Iran not being a terrorist organization, that's true, but it's also true they support and harbor terrorist organizations. Iranian WMD and Support of Terrorism What makes sense to me in the U.S. placing a missle defence system over yonder, is that it is probably capable of destroying a single warhead that a terrorist organization might be able to get a hold of.



I don't think the Al-Quaeda attack is besides the point here, I think the U.S. military expansion all began with 9/11. That put fear into our hearts of similar occurances, worldwide terrorist organizations, and in extreme relevancy to this post, a fear of nuclear attack from a terrorist organization, because of which this missle defense system has come about. Also, while we have only been attacked once at home, we are still being attacked in Iraq. Yes, we did invade them and are occupying their home country, but it's not as if we're fighting Iraq. We are fighting the terrorists IN Iraq, which is, I believe, one of the problems at the root of all this garbage, the terrorists. Don't forget about the London bombings either.


As I've said above, I'm not so concerned with Russia or China as a country, or even Iran as a country, attacking the U.S. But I think there is a possibility that a terrorist organization, indirectly or otherwise supported by Iran, and perhaps even indirectly by Russia and China (they're big countries, there could be terrorist hideouts there), may try to launch something devastating. It's like a scene out of a James Bond movie, where an evil leader steals a nuke then uses it to try and play two countries off against each other (in this case, some combination of the U.S. and Russia/CHina/Iran ect). I forget which actual movie that was. (Lol it may have been Austin Powers too). I don't know the actual reasons for the missle defense placement, but I would surmise that it has something to do with the effectiveness of the range/speed/capability of the missles and the defense system.


A missle launched from the Middle East would have to pass through Eastern Europe, perhaps, or maybe that's the most cost-efficient place for the U.S. to install it. Assuming this missle is headed for the continental U.S.

If we had a powerful conviction, then it would be the same. Unfortunately our populace is not aroused enough to currently resist passively.


Err, this debate hasn't been about Republican's/Democrats either so far. It's just the current administration that has created these policies has by chance been Republican.

A similar system in another location can do the same thing. There has been no indication whatsoever otherwise.

The war against Iraq was declared illegally, for one. Anyway, I was saying that there's no connection between this and the missile defense, and there still isn't.

I'm a bit offended that you think Russia has a larger chance of harboring terrorists then the U.S, but I'll let it slide since I think so too . However, that does not stop the placement of the missile defense system in Russia itself. It can still reach China, Iran and Russia to knock a nuke out of the sky. It will put China and Russia at ease. The US simply does not want to relinquish control of this to Russia - I really have absolutely no indication otherwise. As posted a few times, the US has been adamant about putting it in Eastern Europe, and yet has not given a reason as to why a compromise solely on location cannot be made.

Putin offered to renovate the area where he planned to put it in Russia (I forgot the exact name) to make it modern, etc. I'm pretty sure that'll more than make up for any cost deficiency, and I don't really see where that deficiency'd be coming from anyway. And.. what's the problem with it passing through Eastern Europe? If it's in Eastern Europe, it'll have to pass through Eastern Europe when launched anyway..

Yep.

Just telling Krayzee. He's the one that split the US into democrats and republics for this discussion .

Centreri, the majority of the Untied States is against George W. Bush and nearly all Iraqis are against the United States invasion to their country. Most of what you speak is against George W. Bush which you are implying as an entire country. I doubt that the democratic side of the United States would ever go against the United Nations, especially since the United States are one of the founding countries of the United Nations.

That's true, but please remember that Bush got into power twice. I'd say that pretty much ruined what I thought about the American people. And then, the fact that McCain's serious opposition for someone like Obama... I don't see much hope in a country where half the people would pretty much elect someone without an economic policy at a time when the economy's breaking down..

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 12 2008, 3:26 am by Centreri.

A very good article on this was written by German Daniel Mockli. Here's the link:
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/pubs/ph/details.cfm?lng=en&id=29898
There's an english download version if you don't speak german.

According to that, Russia has been giving the U.S. a lot of bull, though there are other countries that question the need for the missle system. The purpose of which, is to deterr, as I suspected before following up with a source, is to deter Iran from firing any nuclear missles it may or may not have the capability in time soon to come to use. We already have a missle defense system in Alaska to deter missles from North Korea apparently too.

After reading the article above (and the wikipedia article cited below), this is not so. A medium range missle defense system could not protect all U.S. allies in Europe if it were stationed in Russia.

I'm sorry I was not clear enough. The connection is that the U.S. is afraid of being attacked by nuclear missles originating in the Middle East, and wants to implement a system to protect itself and its allies from said attack. The great level of animosity for the U.S. in the middle east, evidenced by the AL-Queda attack of 9/11, should be a clear indicator of the origins of our fears.

And the war in Iraq was not declared illegally. It simply did not have a U.N. approval. In that sense you can call it "illegal," but you cannot expect the U.N. to be able to effectively enforce laws, or even to have the authority to enforce laws, because of the setup of the organization. The members of the security council can all veto any action as I'm sure you know, and just by being on the council have a vastly unequal share of the powers of the organization.

Why should it compromise soley with Russia? I was not aware of all these arguments until now either, but the purpose of the missle system is to defend U.S. allies as well, and since Moscow is already equipped with its own functional non-treaty-compliant missle system Missle Defense Wikipedia Article, and we know Russia is capable of handling its own defenses, and isn't part of NATO, Russia is really the one here we should be placing the blame on for instigating these "Cold War Tensions." Though, Germany and France aren't happy either.

As for the blame on Russia, here's a little bit more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adapted_CFE_treaty
Russia hasn't pulled out of Georgia completely, so NATO won't ratify the adapted CFE treaty. Russia however claims it has fulfilled its obligations. Russia didn't fulfill its obligations but is mad NATO didn't ratify.

Most of what he speaks is against G.W.B because he was (and is) the head of the administration at the time the policies with which Centreri does not agree with were instituted. (Though, if you read the Wikipedia article I cited earlier, you can blame Reagan and Clinton too). As for the Democrats going against the UN, I think it's quite likely. They may be a different political party, but they are probably a citizen of America first, and a citizen of the World second. Though, I think you are partially right, if you would have changed "would ever go" to "would be less likely to go." And using the U.S. support of the U.N. to say the U.S. wouldn't go against the U.N. doesn't make sense, since that means the U.N. is heavily dependant on the U.S., and not the other way around.

Why did that ruin what you thought about the American people? I don't think anyone thinks Bush is the greatest President of all time (or even close), but would Al Gore or John Kerry have really done so much better?
If McCain were not even a factor, I will still not vote for Barack. He is focused too much on health care and the economy in a time when there is a significant risk to the U.S. from terrorist organizations and military takeovers in the Middle East. I'm not happy about the Iraq war, don't get me wrong. But simply pulling out of Iraq now and leaving the country half-assed is not an option I would be happy about either. I'm not happy about the economy either, but I'd rather have a missile defense system in Poland, a radar station in Czech, and my life, than have some idiotic terrorist organization launch something at my country.

Now, as for McCain v. Barack, why do you see McCain as being so ridiculous? Lol -- I must admit, McCain's crack about staying in Iraq a hundred years is ridiculous. But he won't be President a hundred years, and it's not like he's going to completely disregard the fact the U.S. exists and will just wage war.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 13 2008, 4:23 pm by Vrael.

So make it long range. I'm really not convinced. If the US wants so badly to have so much control over Europe, I don't see how it's bad to make them rethink it by increasing the cost required anyway.

And yet, there was a clear enough saying in the article that it is not expected by pretty much anyone but the US that Iran will have nuclear weapons by 2015, and the effectiveness of a missile defense in general. Shooting down a bullet with a bullet - I kind of like that comparison .

I wasn't talking about Russia's defense - I was talking about the scenario you brought up where terrorists steal Russian nukes or something, and saying how the missile defense system placed in Russia could cover pretty much all of Eurasia. As to why Russia isn't part of NATO - I have no idea why you brought that up. NATO was originally an anti-Soviet bloc and is now a loose coalition for mutual defense - as if America wouldn't invade any aggressive country anyway. Joining NATO would weaken Russia by perhaps forcing it to fight in a war - and, honestly, out of all the targets, why would a terrorist group target Russia? Good relations with middle-eastern countries, opposition to the war in Iraq, etc. Joining NATO isn't something Russia should do. And, since you brought it up, NATO made a commitment not to expand eastward after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and today Ukraine and Georgia are being pulled into NATO (Hey, also against what most of the people want. I'm starting to see a pattern here.)

The CFE treaty was ratified by Russia and followed. Moldovia was completely unrelated.sourceforwhatimabout2say. The Revised CFE treaty simply required Russia to lower presence in Moldovia and Georgia - NATO countries, however, weren't going to sign it until Russia removed that military presence. I'd say I win this one. Oh, and here's a quote from later on: 'there is no legal connection between the Adapted CFE treaty and the Russian withdrawal from Georgia and Moldova.' At around 8:00 comments on this - Russia is withdrawing troops from Georgia and protecting ammunition warehouses in Maldovia, with only 1500 troops.

I think Al Gore would've done better at preserving the economy, yes. However, I'm really not that knowledgeable about Al Gore or John Kerry, so lets not go there. I'd also like some document or something that convinces me that Iran is developing it's nuclear program to develop weapons, rather then to become a larger economic force and to produce more energy and reinforce its status as a energy powerhouse. It really seems like a much wiser course and more like something I would expect from a major oil exporter. That's what this all rests on, isn't it? And North Korea is slowly reducing it's nuclear program, so... yeah.

EDIT: Pentagon planning to expand nuclear arsenal.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Jun 14 2008, 3:48 pm by Centreri.

Can get passed any antimissile defense system, hah, thats pretty ignorant.

An exaggeration, perhaps, but a backed up exaggeration. You have..?

Mmmm. Easier said than done, and wouldn't that in fact be more threatening than a medium range defensive missle system?


Don't you think your argument here has no basis? I don't mean to attack your views but I can see nothing here I need to refute. If you feel I'm missing something, which is probably likely, please re-enunciate. I will however assume you were refuting my argument with the "not expected by pretty much anyone but the US that Iran will have nuclear weapons by 2015" part, but if the weatherman says its going to be a sunny day and I see rain clouds, I'm still going to go inside... My point being, the U.S. HAS been attacked, there ARE anti-U.S. feelings in the middle east, and the increasing number of rockets in the world may lead one to believe that an organization may use one. Not even necessarily a nuclear missle.



Russia is not part of NATO, therefore a missile defense system designed to protect NATO members has no need to also protect Russia. There's still no reason to place the system in Russia. I will reiterate my perceived reason for the missle system: it may be possible that a terrorist organization based in the middle east could fire a warhead through Europe. The placement of the system IN Europe will therefore protect NATO members and the U.S.



Why is there a need for Russia to have troops in Georgia at all? Can't they just bring their weapons home with them? That said, I agree that if Georgia has consented for those 1500 troops to be left there, NATO should probably ratify the treaty.
And what did you win exactly?

When you googled "pentagon nuclear arsenal" did you miss the 8 or 9 entries on "Pentagon sees Russia strengthening Nuclear Arsenal"?

I'm willing to bet if I googled it in russian, there would be 20x the amount of 'America' doing it then Russia doing it. With Russia, I understand why, and Russia hasn't been making aggressive moves at all, at least not those that weren't responses to what the west has done. The US is involved with two wars and a missile defense system in Europe. Russia has a demographic problem, so it doesn't want to lose soldiers and hopes to deter terrorists and such with nuclear weapons instead of sacrificing men in fighting. Also, Nuclear deveopment is cheaper then outfitting hundreds of thousands of soldiers.

Satisfaction?
The point is that a defense system in Russia could defend all of NATO. It's not really that further away from the UK. While we're on the subject, with Poland wanting a lot of money for the US placing the system there, the US has turned its attention to Lithuania, which seems to be a great spot against Russia too. Even better, in fact, since it's further away from the Middle East and closer to Russia.

I'm fairly certain the US already has long-range missile systems in western Europe from the Cold War Era. the thing that makes something closer dangerous is the flying time. Stick a nuclear bomb on one of those defensive missiles, and in less than ten minutes it can be detonated. The S-400, currently most modern anti-air system, has a deployment time of five minutes. Then, there's the delayed initial detection and actually catching the missile..

Yeah, my response there wasn't particularly an argument. Most anti-US feelings in the middle east are because of how the US is trying to dominate the middle east - I'd be - no, sorry, AM pissed at the US too. As I have stated multiple times, a mid-range missile system can be placed in my places to protect NATO states. However, the US has chosen former Soviet states, from which the missile flight time into Russia would be pretty short. I haven't been able to find a real source, but I think I read somewhere that it's three minutes from Poland.. well, probably a small exaggeration. Explain to me why the US wouldn't put the missile system in western European countries, but in post Soviet states? Say.. Germany?

I'll also note that the US recently 'lost' thousands of nuclear explosives materials, which can easily end up in terrorist hands.

Why should a missile defense system be placed in Russia?

To stop Russia from being pissed. I see easy alternatives in western Europe or the middle east itself, though.

Why does the Unites States need to cater to Russia? This is actually what I meant by my last question, sorry, bad phrasing. From my own limited perspective, I don't see why it matters that they're "pissed off." There's nothing to be pissed off about. It's a defense system, it's for protection. The U.S. has no reason to declare war on Russia, Russia is just mad that they wouldn't be able to attack the U.S. as easily, not saying that they would though, and that Poland and Czech would benefit from the $$ rather than them.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jun 23 2008, 10:05 pm by Vrael.

I'm sorry, did you miss the point of the 'Missile with nuclear bombs and a 3-minute flight into Russia' speech? This defense provides America with a way to nuke Russia without any anti-air defense having a decent chance of stopping it. As to catering to Russia.. the point of this topic is about how aggressive the US has become lately. If you start speaking about the US not needing anyone's permission or blessings to do anything, then you're pretty much agreeing that it's become extremely aggressive.

The U.S. does not need Russia's permission to create a missile defense system, just like Russia does not need the U.S.'s permission. There's no aggresiveness involved, so long as the countries are at peace. Besides, if the system was placed within Russia itself wouldn't the strike time go from 3 minutes to 0 minutes?

There is a notable and clear difference between needing permission and being aggressive. I would however agree that the U.S. is becoming more aggressive in pursuing its defensive capabilities since the advent of 9/11. There remains to be seen any reason for the U.S. to attack Russia. Old Cold War tensions? Jealousy? NATO pressures? What is your angle, Centreri?

Define peace. Was the Cold War, largely, peace between America and the Soviet Union? After all, they didn't directly fight with each other. They fought using mediums such as Israel and Arab countries, much like is being done now, with Russia supplying Iran with anti-air systems as deterrents but with America and Israel threatening to bomb Iran. Is this really 'peace'?
NATO expansion, missile system positioning, hypocritical criticism, Fox News. Things that piss me off relating to this .

Nuclear weapons as a rule are not used primarily as a weapon - that's their secondary use. The primary use of a nuclear weapon is leverage. This is what kept the Cold War from turning hot, etc. I don't like the US having the ABILITY to nuke Russia. I don't like the US being able to subtly threaten Russia with a free-access nuke. Compare it to the Cuban Missile Crisis - Nukes in Cuba, nearly started a nuclear war. I'd say Russia's reiterating mildly. The Soviet Union wasn't going to nuke America - it was a deterrent and an attempt to gain leverage and put pressure on America. I'd say the shoe's on the other foot, and I've already stated my reasons as to why the missile defense system is aimed at Russia. I'm not exactly alone in my way of thinking, and with rising Russia-US tensions (largely over this, actually..), as well as Russia's resurgence in military (primarily nuclear) and economic power, I see it very possible that the US is trying to get influence before it becomes a bit late.

Hope that cleared that up .

"Fox News" LOL. Must say that was awsome.
It would be much nicer if the U.S. and Russia could simply focus on building International Space Stations.

All the same, and drawing again on much of what I've stated previously, I think there is a clear reason for having a missle system in Europe, and not necessarily under Russia's control. I don't think that warrants aggressiveness on the part of the U.S., I don't think the U.S. has any delusions about world domination, but it's rather a fear of attack from terrorist organizations, or countries like Iran that hate the U.S., that has prompted the placement of the system, even if it may appear aggressive.


These are reasons for your belief that the U.S. is being aggressive though, not reasons for the U.S. to attack Russia.


Yea, nuke = classic deterrence theory. But if Russia doesn't want the U.S. to have the ability to nuke them, put their own missile defense pop squat on the border in front of it. Easier said than done of course, but nowadays I don't think the communist scare is still around, there's no reason to scare Russia or make war with them. Maybe the U.S. is trying for leverage, that is a possibility, but I still think it more likely that the U.S. is afraid of terrorist missiles than otherwise.

I'm not really saying the the US will attack Russia in the immediate future. First you weaken it, reduce its trade, make it a weak global player, then you finish it in. I'm mostly just saying that the US is trying to dominate everything, not exactly kill it with fire.

What, nukes near the border? What's the use? Russia can nuke just about anyone, though with varying degrees of success. Most countries have decent anti-air these days. Unless Russia puts a missile defense in Cuba, Mexico or Canada, the situation won't be even, because the US can track and intercept missiles from anywhere further then those countries. Foreign aid, satellite stuff, radar, etc. No reason to scare Russia? Russia supplies maybe 40% of total European oil imports, has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, etc etc. Plenty of reason to scare Russia. And, honestly, why would the US be so passionate about it being in a former Soviet-bloc country, a country close to Russia? What makes that area so special, other then the fact that it's close to Russia?

EDIT: New on the list of things that piss me off: