# GENERAL FORUM > IN THE NEWS >  Russian tanks enter South Ossetia

## Flagg

Quote:
Russian tanks have entered Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia, says Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.
Georgia has been fighting separatists with ties to Russia in order to regain control of the province, which has had de facto independence since the 1990s. 

Russian troops in the South Ossetian capital said their artillery had begun firing at Georgian forces, Russian news agencies reported. 

Russia's president earlier promised to defend his citizens in South Ossetia. 

Moscow's defence ministry said more than 10 of its peacekeeping troops in South Ossetia had been killed and 30 wounded in the Georgian offensive. At least 15 civilians are also reported dead. 

'Clear intrusion' 

Amid international calls for restraint, Georgia's president said 150 Russian tanks and other vehicles had entered South Ossetia. 

He told CNN: "Russia is fighting a war with us in our own territory." 

Mr Saakashvili, who has called on reservists to sign up for duty, said: "This is a clear intrusion on another country's territory. 

"We have Russian tanks on our territory, jets on our territory in broad daylight," Reuters new agency quoted him as saying. 

Later, Moscow's foreign ministry told media that Russian tanks had reached the northern outskirts of the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali. 

The Georgian interior ministry said Russian jets had killed three Georgian soldiers at an airbase outside the capital, Tbilisi, during a bombing raid on Friday, Reuters news agency reported. 

Russia denied any of its fighters had entered its neighbour's airspace. 

Moscow's defence ministry said reinforcements for Russian peacekeepers had been sent to South Ossetia "to help end bloodshed". 

Amid reports of Russian deaths, President Dmitry Medvedev said: "I must protect the life and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are," Interfax news agency reported. 

"We will not allow their deaths to go unpunished. Those responsible will receive a deserved punishment." 

'Ethnic cleansing' 

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow was receiving reports that villages in South Ossetia were being ethnically cleansed.
\
Mr Lavrov added in televised remarks: "The number of refugees is growing. A humanitarian crisis is looming." 

Russia said it would cut all air links with Georgia from midnight on Friday. 

Meanwhile Interfax quoted South Ossetian rebel leader Eduard Kokoity as saying there were "hundreds of dead civilians" in Tskhinvali. 

Witnesses said the regional capital was devastated. 

Lyudmila Ostayeva, 50, told AP news agency: "I saw bodies lying on the streets, around ruined buildings, in cars. It's impossible to count them now. There is hardly a single building left undamaged." 

US President George W Bush spoke with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin about the crisis while they attended the Beijing Olympics. 

Later, the US voiced support for Georgia's territorial integrity and its state department said it would send an envoy to the region. 

Nato said it was seriously concerned about the situation, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel called on all sides to show restraint. 

The European security organisation, the OSCE, warned that the fighting risked escalating into a full-scale war. 

Georgian Foreign Minister Ekaterine Tkeshelashvili told the BBC it wanted to ensure that any civilians who wanted to leave the conflict zone could do so safely. 

International Red Cross spokeswoman Anna Nelson said it had received reports that hospitals in Tskhinvali were having trouble coping with the influx of casualties and ambulances were having trouble reaching the injured. 

Georgian Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze said Georgia had simply run out of patience with attacks by separatist militias in recent days and had had to move in to restore peace in South Ossetia. 

Truce plea 

Georgia accuses Russia of arming the separatists. Moscow denies the claim. 

Russia earlier called an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to respond to the crisis, but members failed to agree on a Russian statement calling on both sides to renounce the use of force. 

The BBC's James Rodgers in Moscow says Russia has always said it supports the territorial integrity of Georgia but also that it would defend its citizens. Many South Ossetians hold Russian passports. 

Hundreds of fighters from Russia and Georgia's other breakaway region of Abkhazia were reportedly heading to aid the separatist troops. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7548715.stm


What does everyone think of this? Georgia want the West to do something about this. If we do, I can only see bad things coming from this.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

It would be hypocritical if the west stand against this after we supported Kosovo independence.

----------


## Flagg

It's hard to "take sides" as I don't know much about the situation, but I keep hearing things like "ethnic cleansing" being banded about, 1000's of dead civilians etcetera..

If Russia are doing this to legitimitely help the people of Ossetia who are 90% Russian I believe, then I guess it's no1's business but theres, but I really hope Putin isn't trying to goad the West.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Yeah seems impossible to get the straight story on this. Its interesting to compare russian and western newssites about this, totaly reversed stories.

----------


## Prada

Its a precarious situation. The US has already stated for a halt of the excursion. Then again I really dont think Putin gives a rats ass what the US has to say.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Russia...d_in_0809.html

----------


## thegodfather

Lol Russia should respect Georgia's sovereignty the same way that we respected Iraq's...

----------


## MuscleScience

What pisses me off about Russia is US tax payers are paying for the security of Russian nuclear weapons because they can not afford to secure and dismantle their nukes. Yet they can afford to develope next generation ICBM's and wage war on a breakaway province. Plus with there new found wealth from oil and gas why cant they secure there own installations.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> What pisses me off about Russia is US tax payers are paying for the security of Russian nuclear weapons because they can not afford to secure and dismantle their nukes. Yet they can afford to develope next generation ICBM's and wage war on a breakaway province. Plus with there new found wealth from oil and gas why cant they secure there own installations.


You started paying for it back when russia was just starting to recover from the fall of the soviet union. Nowdays russia surely has enough money, but if you are stupid enough to keep paying then I dont se why they should stop recieving  :LOL:  No one ever turnes down money.

On the other hand, america has got plenty of dirt cheap uranium from russia from the megatons to megawatts program. So a quite large fraction of your electricity comes from dismantled russian nukes, that evens it out a bit.

----------


## MuscleScience

> You started paying for it back when russia was just starting to recover from the fall of the soviet union. Nowdays russia surely has enough money, but if you are stupid enough to keep paying then I dont se why they should stop recieving  No one ever turnes down money.
> 
> On the other hand, america has got plenty of dirt cheap uranium from russia from the megatons to megawatts program. So a quite large fraction of your electricity comes from dismantled russian nukes, that evens it out a bit.


Very true, I am not sure how much it takes to refine uranium but I guess weapons grade is abouts as good as you can get for our reactors....LOL

----------


## gixxerboy1

> Lol Russia should respect Georgia's sovereignty the same way that we respected Iraq's...


lol. Our propaganda news here is ridiculous with its spin. 

Russia has had peace keeping troops there since the 90's. Georgia sent more troops to try and gain more power in the territory. So Russia responded. 

I love how we supported Croatia gaining its independence. But we don't support south ossetia.

Also like godfather said. Everyone is complaining how Russia sent troops into a sovereign nation. At least Russia was defending its civilians that live there. They have alot more legitimate reason then we did.

----------


## Flagg

> lol. Our propaganda news here is ridiculous with its spin. 
> 
> Russia has had peace keeping troops there since the 90's. Georgia sent more troops to try and gain more power in the territory. So Russia responded. 
> 
> I love how we supported Croatia gaining its independence. But we don't support south ossetia.
> 
> Also like godfather said. Everyone is complaining how Russia sent troops into a sovereign nation. At least Russia was defending its civilians that live there. They have alot more legitimate reason then we did.


The more I read about Georgia, the more I don't like the place. Russia is accussing Georgia of ethnic cleansing and trying to drag other nations into their "bloody soap opera" as Putin is quoted as saying. However, im not happy with Russia "accidently" bombing civilian sites in Goring. Georgia is also accussing Russia or trying to bomb their oil pipe that is linked to Turkey. Im also hearing that the reason for this attack is because Russia is not happy with Georgia and her ties with the EU and the West. 

I still don't know who is in the wrong...I guess it's a case of "watch this space".

----------


## gixxerboy1

> The more I read about Georgia, the more I don't like the place. Russia is accussing Georgia of ethnic cleansing and trying to drag other nations into their "bloody soap opera" as Putin is quoted as saying. However, im not happy with Russia "accidently" bombing civilian sites in Goring. Georgia is also accussing Russia or trying to bomb their oil pipe that is linked to Turkey. Im also hearing that the reason for this attack is because Russia is not happy with Georgia and her ties with the EU and the West. 
> 
> I still don't know who is in the wrong...I guess it's a case of "watch this space".


I do agree both sides arent perfect. But i honestly believe Georgia started this attack.

I never got an answer out of my wife but she has always hated Georgians.

----------


## Flagg

> I do agree both sides arent perfect. But i honestly believe Georgia started this attack.
> 
> I never got an answer out of my wife but she has always hated Georgians.


Well Georgia have backed down, but Russia are continuing to bomb all of Georgia. Russia are ignoring everyone who are pleading with Russia to cease fire. Russia are saying it is because there are still Georgian soldiers in Ossetia. I dunno, it's starting to look like over-kill now with Putin desperately trynna make a point to the world. He reminds me of some kid in a playground, kicking and screaming in his sandbox and wanting everyone to notice him.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> Well Georgia have backed down, but Russia are continuing to bomb all of Georgia. Russia are ignoring everyone who are pleading with Russia to cease fire. Russia are saying it is because there are still Georgian soldiers in Ossetia. I dunno, it's starting to look like over-kill now with Putin desperately trynna make a point to the world. He reminds me of some kid in a playground, kicking and screaming in his sandbox and wanting everyone to notice him.


I agree that Russia is probably going to far. But its funny how the news is putting a spin on it. they keep saying it democratic Georgia and how its wrong to invade their sovereignty. Yet it was ok to invade Iraq since its a dictatorship? Why don't we support south ossetia? They want freedom from Georgia. Oh because they are aligned with Russia and dont want our idea of whats perfect.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Russia orders halt 

http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-G...68040420080812




> By Oleg Shchedrov and Margarita Antidze
> 
> MOSCOW/TBILISI (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered a halt to military operations in Georgia on Tuesday but Tbilisi cast doubt on the announcement, saying Moscow was still bombing towns and villages.
> 
> The announcement coincided with the visit of French president Nicolas Sarkozy to Moscow on an EU peace mission and seemed intended to help international efforts to negotiate a lasting truce.
> 
> Sarkozy said Russia and Georgia, who have been fighting since last Thursday, had not yet agreed a peace deal, adding: "We don't yet have peace. But we have a provisional cessation of hostilities. And everyone should be aware that this is considerable progress. There is still much work to be done....What we want is to secure the best result."
> 
> In a first U.S. reaction, Washington's envoy to the region, Matthew Bryza, termed the Russian move "extremely positive".
> ...

----------


## Flagg

Georgia should just leave Ossetia alone now. From what I gather, 90% of the population is Russian anyways and want absolutely no part of Georgia. 

If Georgia are as "democratic" as they claim to be, they should respect what the citizens of Ossetia want and get about trynna impress the EU and UN.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> Georgia should just leave Ossetia alone now. From what I gather, 90% of the population is Russian anyways and want absolutely no part of Georgia. 
> 
> If Georgia are as "democratic" as they claim to be, they should respect what the citizens of Ossetia want and get about trynna impress the EU and UN.


I agree and i dont think they are going to have a choice in the matter. I have an long lasting agreement with Russia is gonig to demand that

----------


## Panzerfaust

LMAO!

I heard that stupid bitch Cunilingus Rice say this morning "We are taking this very seriously and want it to be known that we support Georgia's territory" bla bla bla

Goddamn America thinking they can tell everyone what the **** to do, I hope Russia and Putin tell that stupid bitch to shut the **** up and Bush too.

I guess its only right if America invades and installs governments around the world.  :LOL: 

LMAO @ the hypocrisy.

----------


## thegodfather

> LMAO!
> 
> I heard that stupid bitch Cunilingus Rice say this morning "We are taking this very seriously and want it to be known that we support Georgia's territory" bla bla bla
> 
> Goddamn America thinking they can tell everyone what the **** to do, I hope Russia and Putin tell that stupid bitch to shut the **** up and Bush too.
> 
> I guess its only right if America invades and installs governments around the world. 
> 
> LMAO @ the hypocrisy.


If you dont like it here, why dont you leave...

I hope you get sent to Gitmo you unpatriotic traitor.. I bet you're a terrorist aren't you. Your part of the blame America first crowd! God bless King Bush.

----------


## spywizard

> Quote:
> Russian tanks have entered Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia, says Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.
> Georgia has been fighting separatists with ties to Russia in order to regain control of the province, which has had de facto independence since the 1990s. 
> 
> Russian troops in the South Ossetian capital said their artillery had begun firing at Georgian forces, Russian news agencies reported. 
> 
> Russia's president earlier promised to defend his citizens in South Ossetia. 
> 
> Moscow's defence ministry said more than 10 of its peacekeeping troops in South Ossetia had been killed and 30 wounded in the Georgian offensive. At least 15 civilians are also reported dead. 
> ...


why would they expect us to do anything??? we have no interests in that country, no viable military, nor economic reason to.. tell them to take it up with the United Nations, in 2-3 years they may issue an opinion..

----------


## MuscleSportMag

This thing could get very ugly and become a much larger scale incident. There seems to be a whisper of the Cold War going on again of late, and this conflict is only making it rear its ugly head again.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> why would they expect us to do anything??? we have no interests in that country, no viable military, nor economic reason to.. tell them to take it up with the United Nations, in 2-3 years they may issue an opinion..


The us and israel has been arming Georgia and preparing them to join NATO. This is probably a little message from russia to the other countries in the region contemplating a NATO membership.

It wouldnt suprise me if Saakashvili acctually was stupid enough to think NATO would save his ass after he started shelling south Ossetia.

----------


## Lexed

real truth 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ

----------


## Jatakat

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news...ussia.Georgia/

Georgia president signs cease-fire with Russia

Let's see how long this lasts.

----------


## g0dsend

Heres a good little site to keep updated on this topic.

http://georgia-vs-russia.com/

----------


## gixxerboy1

> real truth 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ


georgia ****ed with the bull and got the horns

----------


## Flagg

Georgia should be thanking Nicolas Sarkozy as I hear he was instrumental in the Cease Fire and went to Russia personally to talk to Putin. You know, the more i learn about the French President the more I like the guy. People have often mocked the french, but they still have the cheapest electricity in Europe and the cleanest air, largely in part to Nuclear power. The French have a no nonsense approach to Hate Speaches (Islamic clerics spouting racial hatred are often deported) and they are the only other country other than the UK that have nukes, effectively "protecting" Europe. 
Condoliza Rice met with Sarkozy on Thursday, and how much was she kissing his butt, especially after her rant at France back in 2003 when France, Germany and Russia refused to support the war in Iraq. Her words: "Punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia" (source: Independent Newspaper: Friday addition, Aug 15th 08)
What a difference a war makes.

----------


## Flagg

This whole thing will also give the US the reason it needs to put its ABM missle defence system in European countries.

----------


## Panzerfaust

Russia is also pissed that the US is wanting to setup a missle defense system in Poland. Poland has agreed but the Russians are pissed and ****ing rightfully so.

I mean, how would the US react to Russia placing missles lets say...ummmm...in Cuba? Oh wait.....they did and we had the "Cuban Missle Crisis".... :LOL: 

As long as America wants to do soemthing its ok....just look at the ****ing hypocrisy. It's disturbing.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> Russia is also pissed that the US is wanting to setup a missle defense system in Poland. Poland has agreed but the Russians are pissed and ****ing rightfully so.
> 
> I mean, how would the US react to Russia placing missles lets say...ummmm...in Cuba? Oh wait.....they did and we had the "Cuban Missle Crisis"....
> 
> *As long as America wants to do soemthing its ok....just look at the ****ing hypocrisy. It's disturbing*.


I like Bush and Rice making coments on how you can't just invade a soviern nation in the 21st century

----------


## Flagg

> Russia is also pissed that the US is wanting to setup a missle defense system in Poland. Poland has agreed but the Russians are pissed and ****ing rightfully so.
> 
> I mean, how would the US react to Russia placing missles lets say...ummmm...in Cuba? Oh wait.....they did and we had the "Cuban Missle Crisis"....
> 
> As long as America wants to do soemthing its ok....just look at the ****ing hypocrisy. It's disturbing.


It will be done in the "interests of democracy because of Russias aggressive stance in Georgia". I bet the Bush administration were over the moon when they heard what Russia had done. 
Personally I can't believe ANY country in Europe would agree to have such a system set up in their nation, the repercussions alone should be a deterant.

----------


## Pooks

> It will be done in the "interests of democracy because of Russias aggressive stance in Georgia". I bet the Bush administration were over the moon when they heard what Russia had done. 
> Personally I can't believe ANY country in Europe would agree to have such a system set up in their nation, the repercussions alone should be a deterant.


I agree!! no offense to any pollacks but.. seriously.. now you'll be the first nation to get nuked... Any nation will want to eliminate the system, before they start ramming nukes down NATO's throat.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> It will be done in the "interests of democracy because of Russias aggressive stance in Georgia". I bet the Bush administration were over the moon when they heard what Russia had done. 
> Personally I can't believe ANY country in Europe would agree to have such a system set up in their nation, the repercussions alone should be a deterant.


I doubt Russia will allow such a system to be built. If the US doesnt back down who knows how far it will go. Cuba missile crisis reversed. What makes it worse is that the whole missile shiled is useless anyway.

----------


## g0dsend

Its not like 10 interceptors can withhold the Russian fleet of nukes. I mean look at it this way, instead of destroying the United States 100 times over, they have to settle with 99 times.

Yeah sure the defense system is not 100% fool proof, but its better then no system.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Its not like 10 interceptors can withhold the Russian fleet of nukes. I mean look at it this way, instead of destroying the United States 100 times over, they have to settle with 99 times.
> 
> Yeah sure the defense system is not 100% fool proof, but its better then no system.


In what way is it better than no system? Even if it works and there is a nuclear war nothing will be left.  :Shrug:  Its not unreasonable to think that the shield would acctualy make things worse, because if the shield is present russia would go for a real overkill and use more nukes than needed just to be safe. 

When it comes to countries like Iran it seems unlikely they would try to strike with ICBM's anyway, smuggling a nuke in a container ship would be much easier.

The only thing the missile shield is doing right now is increasing the risk of conflict.

----------


## g0dsend

> In what way is it better than no system? Even if it works and there is a nuclear war nothing will be left.  Its not unreasonable to think that the shield would acctualy make things worse, because if the shield is present russia would go for a real overkill and use more nukes than needed just to be safe. 
> 
> When it comes to countries like Iran it seems unlikely they would try to strike with ICBM's anyway, smuggling a nuke in a container ship would be much easier.
> 
> The only thing the missile shield is doing right now is increasing the risk of conflict.


Its better then no system at all considering the threat coming for a rogue state like Iran. It is predicted by around 2015 Iran will have the capability to hit the United States with ICBM's. By no means would it make any difference with an all out war with Russia. With a nuclear strike coming from Russia, its not like 10 interceptors is going to change the outcome, the outcome is total annihilation no matter what. An "overkill" is expected no matter what from Russia, Russia is about to get destroyed and so is the United States.

Their are some systems that are in development that will make a "dent" into Russia's nuclear capability, for instance the AirBorne Laser. One of my favorite projects in development now and I have been tracking it very closely, if it all pans out it should be a great asset to have.

----------


## Panzerfaust

> Its better then no system at all considering the threat coming for a rogue state like Iran. It is predicted by around 2015 Iran will have the capability to hit the United States with ICBM's. By no means would it make any difference with an all out war with Russia. With a nuclear strike coming from Russia, its not like 10 interceptors is going to change the outcome, the outcome is total annihilation no matter what. An "overkill" is expected no matter what from Russia, Russia is about to get destroyed and so is the United States.
> 
> Their are some systems that are in development that will make a "dent" into Russia's nuclear capability, for instance the AirBorne Laser. One of my favorite projects in development now and I have been tracking it very closely, if it all pans out it should be a great asset to have.




LMAO @ Iran being a threat to the USA. Stop watching the news man, they have you believing their bullshit. The US is doing nothing more than nation building and Iran does not care for it hence the reason the US calls them a "threat".

----------


## g0dsend

> LMAO @ Iran being a threat to the USA. Stop watching the news man, they have you believing their bullshit. The US is doing nothing more than nation building and Iran does not care for it hence the reason the US calls them a "threat".


What do you suggest the United States do? Scrap the missile defense program because of you believe that Iran isn't a threat, take the chance at having no defense and hope that you were right? As I say again, their are reports of Iran having the capability of having ICBMs by 2015 according to the European Missile Defense to strike the United States and allies. You can believe what ever you want to believe, but I rather be protected then sorry.

Lets say North Korea starts becoming hostile again and sets off another nuke but this time has the ability to attach the warhead onto a long range missile, we have very LITTLE protection, only our PAC-3 and Aegis systems to defend in the mid/terminal phase of decent.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Its better then no system at all considering the threat coming for a rogue state like Iran. It is predicted by around 2015 Iran will have the capability to hit the United States with ICBM's.


There are plenty of things Iran needs to do before that. First they need to make a couple of nukes, then they have to trim the design of the nukes enough to fit on a ICBM. Probably not possible without some tests, after that they need to develop a ICBM. Got a link to the repport Im curious to skim through it!

If minimizing risk is the goal, then border and harbo controll gives alot more bang for the buck. If a missile shield is present and iran wants to nuke the us they have plenty of easier options than to launch a icbm.

But the bigger question is, why would they launch agains the US knowing they would die imidietly afterwards. I cant say I have ever seen any indication that the ayatholla is insane.  :Shrug:  Ahmadinejad has a very big mouth, but he is just a puppet anyway.




> Their are some systems that are in development that will make a "dent" into Russia's nuclear capability, for instance the AirBorne Laser. One of my favorite projects in development now and I have been tracking it very closely, if it all pans out it should be a great asset to have.


Developing increasingly effective shields is dangerous other reasons aswell. 

If any major power in the future where ever able to build a close to perfect shield with say 99% sucess rate, then it would make conventional large scale war betwen major powers a option again. I personaly prefer MAD over that. MAD has prevented war for 60 years. 

One more danger is that it would be a hinder for further dismantling of nuclear weapons. If the US developes a shield, russia will certainly not dismantled their nukes down to the level of a couple of hundred. They will keep thousands just in case and if russia keeps thousands so will the US. We really dont need more roadblocks in dismantling nuclear weapons, anything that encourages the us and russia to keep more than a couple of hundred nukes each is bad in the long run.

But worst of all, it would encourage opponets to do a first strike, right now russia and I guess even china has enough nukes that they can take out all large cities in the us in a retaliation even if the us manages to take out a big chunk of the launch sites. If the us had a semi working missile shield russia or china would no longer be sure a second strike is enough. If we ever get into a cuban missile crisis situation again the first strike option would look all the more inevitable.

And its also almost always easier to make a better weapon than a better defence.





> Lets say North Korea starts becoming hostile again and sets off another nuke but this time has the ability to attach the warhead onto a long range missile, we have very LITTLE protection, only our PAC-3 and Aegis systems to defend in the mid/terminal phase of decent.


There is a world of difference though betwen beeing able to build a crude bomb and building nice warheads. N.korea cant even make a proper crude bomb. They are a long way from making functional nuclear tipped ICBM's.

----------


## g0dsend

> Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern 
> There are plenty of things Iran needs to do before that. First they need to make a couple of nukes, then they have to trim the design of the nukes enough to fit on a ICBM. Probably not possible without some tests, after that they need to develop a ICBM. Got a link to the repport Im curious to skim through it!
> 
> If minimizing risk is the goal, then border and harbo controll gives alot more bang for the buck. If a missile shield is present and iran wants to nuke the us they have plenty of easier options than to launch a icbm.
> 
> But the bigger question is, why would they launch agains the US knowing they would die imidietly afterwards. I cant say I have ever seen any indication that the ayatholla is insane. Ahmadinejad has a very big mouth, but he is just a puppet anyway..


Of course, theirs no doubt about that. Hand in hand, the United States needs to do the same exact things regarding their missile defenses. Don't you think it would be more logical to have a defense system protecting America first and be ongoing development so when Iran or any other state builds an ICBM, we are not playing a game of catch up? Or should we wait till they have a missile, be 100% sure, start progress to a defense system, wait 10,20, maby 30 years for the shield to be operational? We need to build a shield for the upcoming threat. Iran may not be a threat today, but it sure might as hell be in the close future. 

Their are ways to nuke the United States which is sometimes easier then ICBMS, but nukes that can fit inside a suitcase are a matter of fiction, nuclear devices are hefty pieces of equipment especially for nations that just acquired them and I'm sure customs are really restricting their level of detection post 9/11. It requires protection from customs and missiles. 

Why would Iran launch against the United States knowing that they would get destroyed? Do you think Bin Laden thought the United States wasn't going to retaliate after killing more then 3,000 Americans on US soil? Take for example North Korea, Kim Jong-il would sacrifice his whole country to make a devastating blow to the United States, nobody can put themselves into their shoes. 

On the other hand it also doesn't necessarily mean that they are going to use it, its more an political tool and buffer to get things that they want. 








> Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern 
> Developing increasingly effective shields is dangerous other reasons aswell. 
> 
> If any major power in the future where ever able to build a close to perfect shield with say 99% sucess rate, then it would make conventional large scale war betwen major powers a option again. I personaly prefer MAD over that. MAD has prevented war for 60 years. 
> 
> One more danger is that it would be a hinder for further dismantling of nuclear weapons. If the US developes a shield, russia will certainly not dismantled their nukes down to the level of a couple of hundred. They will keep thousands just in case and if russia keeps thousands so will the US. We really dont need more roadblocks in dismantling nuclear weapons, anything that encourages the us and russia to keep more than a couple of hundred nukes each is bad in the long run.
> 
> But worst of all, it would encourage opponets to do a first strike, right now russia and I guess even china has enough nukes that they can take out all large cities in the us in a retaliation even if the us manages to take out a big chunk of the launch sites. If the us had a semi working missile shield russia or china would no longer be sure a second strike is enough. If we ever get into a cuban missile crisis situation again the first strike option would look all the more inevitable.
> 
> And its also almost always easier to make a better weapon than a better defence..


Developing effective shields is dangerous in a way, and I really do urge the dismantling of Nuclear Weapons but other countries are not in the same boat, they are doing the complete opposite. 

Sure the missile defense system of the future would not work against Russia, its more made for Tier II and Tier III nuclear capability countries which have a higher probablity to attacking us. You cannot think that one system is going to defend against Russia and providing the United States with 100% immunity. Its going to take time and MANY systems to even provide a chance against Russia, if any. 







> Originally Posted by Kärnfysikern 
> There is a world of difference though betwen beeing able to build a crude bomb and building nice warheads. N.korea cant even make a proper crude bomb. They are a long way from making functional nuclear tipped ICBM's.



The United States is a long way from creating an effective missile defense system too. Would you rather be prepared or playing catchup?

----------


## Panzerfaust

Ok, so it's ok for the US to plant missle systems on foreign soil to "protect" its national interest but not for Russia or any other country to do the same?

Wow...you do believe their shit.

----------


## Flagg

GodSend, im inclined to believe Johan when he says it's not exactly a piece of cake to build a nuke. If it was as easy as you think it is, regardless of being able to attach it to a missle capable of travelling the thousands of miles it needs to to reach it's target, then what is to stop some guy from making one on American soil and just walking into Timesquare with a briefcase one day? 

Iran is no threat, it's Russia and China you have to worry about, and building Defense Shields in Europe, which i am NOT happy about, is just waving a red rag at a bull. Any European country that would be stupid enough to have that shield on their soil is asking to be attacked or worse. Godsend, how would you feel if Canada or Brazil wanted to build those underneath your state?

----------


## Flagg

Right now, what stops a nuclear nation from nuking another nation is, guess what...NUCLEAR RETALIATION!!!

If you build that Defense System, that is telling Russia and China "Guess what, we can nuke you if we want and if you try to retaliate, well our shield will stop that".

----------


## Panzerfaust

> Godsend, how would you feel if Canada or Brazil wanted to build those underneath your state?



That's different though, he is an American. American's can do no wrong and are allowed to nation build and stick their nose in everyones ****ing business. Everyone else must obey or Democracy will be forced upon you.

It's ok for America to "protect" it's interests, Russia is just stupid for thinking they have the right to protect their interests.  :LOL:

----------


## Red Ketchup

> we can nuke you if we want and if you try to retaliate, well our shield will stop that".


Hopefully that doesn't get them going the way of bio/chemical warfare again... 

Red

----------


## g0dsend

> Ok, so it's ok for the US to plant missle systems on foreign soil to "protect" its national interest but not for Russia or any other country to do the same?
> 
> Wow...you do believe their shit.



Heh, First of all, your comparing apples to oranges here. The system thats getting installed is 10 interceptors, non-lethal, non-explosive, and doesn't have an attack capability. Its not like we are placing Nuclear weapons their.

The missiles in Cuba were medium range ballistic missiles which was a first strike, first kill missile, aimed at the United States.





> GodSend, im inclined to believe Johan when he says it's not exactly a piece of cake to build a nuke. If it was as easy as you think it is, regardless of being able to attach it to a missle capable of travelling the thousands of miles it needs to to reach it's target, then what is to stop some guy from making one on American soil and just walking into Timesquare with a briefcase one day? 
> 
> Iran is no threat, it's Russia and China you have to worry about, and building Defense Shields in Europe, which i am NOT happy about, is just waving a red rag at a bull. Any European country that would be stupid enough to have that shield on their soil is asking to be attacked or worse. Godsend, how would you feel if Canada or Brazil wanted to build those underneath your state?



Suitcase nukes are not what you think, United States and Russia have them and they are the size of a small car. No nuke can be as small as a suitcase.


How would I feel if Brazil or Canada would allow a ABM interceptors on their country from, lets say Russia? To be honest, if their was countries like North Korea, Iran and possibly others developing nuclear weapons around the United States I would allow it because it no effect on the outcome in a war between Russia and the United States, only Russia and the country the interceptors are intended for. I would put in the clause though that if missiles are intended for the United States, if Russia would be kind enough to shoot those down. 

I don't know how many times I said it, 10 interceptors is not going to change the outcome between Russia and USA, its total annihilation for both parties. Its not like this is the ultimate weapons of century and its rendering Russia useless. 10 Interceptors, all Russia has to do is shoot 10 more missiles in the thousands they have.

----------


## g0dsend

> That's different though, he is an American. American's can do no wrong and are allowed to nation build and stick their nose in everyones ****ing business. Everyone else must obey or Democracy will be forced upon you.
> 
> It's ok for America to "protect" it's interests, Russia is just stupid for thinking they have the right to protect their interests.


You are correct, I'm American and I can do anything I want  :Aajack:  

Thanks for that stereotype  :Hmmmm:

----------


## Flagg

GodSend, forget Iran and N.Korea and all these lil tinpot places that can't do anything. TRY and look at the bigger picture, TRY and look at the message building something like that says to nations that CAN nuke us right now if they wanted to. 

And Canada wouldnt build a defence system in America to defend against Russia for christ sakes, they would build it nearer "the threat". What I meant was, what if Canada built a defence system in America to protect itself from Latin America or Peru building a system in America to protect itself from Canada?

----------


## Flagg

That defence system in Europe is NOT for places like Iran, it will clearly be for America to stick their oar into China and Russia's business in the future. It's just another way of saying "we want to police the world".

----------


## g0dsend

Forget about Iran and North Korea? Why? You really do not make sense, North Korea and Iran are threats. I really do not feel like repeating myself over and over.

Tell me this, I want to hear it from you personally, how can 10 interceptors affect the outcome of a nuclear war between China and/or Russia? I do not know how many times I said it, it wont!

No shit Canada wouldn't build a defense system for Russia, it was a "what if" scenario.

Do you know anything about ABM shields? The interceptors can not be severly close to the hostile nation, it needs to be distant enough for it to meet it in mid orbit and go for the kill. Poland is Ideal to protect the American military bases in our countires out their in Europe.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> Forget about Iran and North Korea? Why? You really do not make sense, North Korea and Iran are threats. I really do not feel like repeating myself over and over.
> 
> Tell me this, I want to hear it from you personally, how can 10 interceptors affect the outcome of a nuclear war between China and/or Russia? I do not know how many times I said it, it wont!
> 
> No shit Canada wouldn't build a defense system for Russia, it was a "what if" scenario.
> 
> Do you know anything about ABM shields? The interceptors can not be severly close to the hostile nation, it needs to be distant enough for it to meet it in mid orbit and go for the kill. Poland is Ideal to protect the American military bases in our countires out their in Europe.


why are north korea and iran threats? N korea according to our goverment was just removed from the axis of evil.

----------


## Panzerfaust

North Korea and Iran are threats because the US say's so...so we better agree with them and go along.

Any moron can see this is the US antagonising the Russians.

----------


## g0dsend

> why are north korea and iran threats? N korea according to our goverment was just removed from the axis of evil.


In a way, your correct I misled that last part, sorry.

Bush said though that North Korea was still part of the "Axis of Evil", and North Korea could be soon be wiped off that list, not officially yet.

----------


## g0dsend

> North Korea and Iran are threats because the US say's so...so we better agree with them and go along.
> 
> Any moron can see this is the US antagonising the Russians.


Love how you cherry pick peoples comments stereotyping Americans as being ignorant and uneducated. 

Yet, you offer no knowledgeable responce to this topic.  :Icon Rolleyes:

----------


## gixxerboy1

> In a way, your correct I misled that last part, sorry.
> 
> Bush said though that North Korea was still part of the "Axis of Evil", and North Korea could be soon be wiped off that list, not officially yet.


my mistake

----------


## Panzerfaust

> Love how you cherry pick peoples comments stereotyping *Americans as being ignorant and uneducated*. 
> 
> Yet, you offer no knowledgeable responce to this topic.



Pretty true for the most part, sad but true.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Of course, theirs no doubt about that. Hand in hand, the United States needs to do the same exact things regarding their missile defenses. Don't you think it would be more logical to have a defense system protecting America first and be ongoing development so when Iran or any other state builds an ICBM, we are not playing a game of catch up? Or should we wait till they have a missile, be 100% sure, start progress to a defense system, wait 10,20, maby 30 years for the shield to be operational? We need to build a shield for the upcoming threat. Iran may not be a threat today, but it sure might as hell be in the close future.


The main argument I have against the missile shield is not so much that you are developing it, but that the bush admin is insisting on putting it in poland and checkoslovakia. If you had it on your own soil I would not mind it much, that doesnt endanger europe.

But when it comes to Iran, waiting untill you have proof that iran is acctually trying to build nuclear weapons would be a nice first step. I agree that it seems likely that they are doing it, but so far there is not one single shred of conclusive evidence for it. 

But even if they get a nuke I dont se any reason for america to be afraid, Iran is not run by terrorists that would sacrifice their entire country.





> Their are ways to nuke the United States which is sometimes easier then ICBMS, but nukes that can fit inside a suitcase are a matter of fiction, nuclear devices are hefty pieces of equipment especially for nations that just acquired them and I'm sure customs are really restricting their level of detection post 9/11. It requires protection from customs and missiles.


Well I wasnt talking about a suitcase kind of nuke, even though they are not impossible they are far beyond the capabilities of iran etc. But smuggling in a full sized bomb in a container would not be very hard, containers are not scanned for fissile materials. Hell I dont think any border controll scans for fissile material regulary. Its not very easy unless you got some gamma emitting contaminant in the weapon. Otherwise you have to hit it with a burst of neutrons and look for coincidence emissions of neutrons from the material.

Smuggling it across the mexican border would probably not be that hard either.





> Why would Iran launch against the United States knowing that they would get destroyed? Do you think Bin Laden thought the United States wasn't going to retaliate after killing more then 3,000 Americans on US soil? Take for example North Korea, Kim Jong-il would sacrifice his whole country to make a devastating blow to the United States, nobody can put themselves into their shoes.


Bin Laden and Ali Khamenei can not be compared like that. Have you any reason to belive Khamenei is mentaly unstable enough to sacrifice his own people to take out at most one american city? I dont se any reason for Kim Jong to do it either, dictator yes. But I se no reason to belive he would die just to strike the US. People said Nikita Khrushchev was crazy aswell.





> The United States is a long way from creating an effective missile defense system too. Would you rather be prepared or playing catchup?


Well Im not american so for me it doesnt matter either way,  :7up:  aslong as any shield you develop doesnt put the rest of the world in danger. As the proposed shield in checkoslovakia and poland is! If you developed it and hosted it on american soil I would have no problem with it really. But putting it on the border of russia, that is just asking for troubble.




> Suitcase nukes are not what you think, United States and Russia have them and they are the size of a small car. No nuke can be as small as a suitcase.


Look up the davy crocket nuke, this is how small you can make them if you got the technology.


The critical mass of Pu or U-235 doesnt take up much space, in the case of a bare sphere of Pu239 its only 10cm diameter or roughly 4 inches. Reflected even less, its getting a nice and effective implosion device to fit into a small volume that is the hard part.




> Forget about Iran and North Korea? Why? You really do not make sense, North Korea and Iran are threats. I really do not feel like repeating myself over and over.
> 
> Tell me this, I want to hear it from you personally, how can 10 interceptors affect the outcome of a nuclear war between China and/or Russia? I do not know how many times I said it, it wont!


It wont but from Russian eyes first its a huge insult, like spitting them in the face. Second for all they know its a first step to building a much larger system and one more step in NATO encircling Russia. The important thing isnt how effective the system, its how much of a threat the russians feel it is in the long run. Politics has never been rational and russia will react against what they think is a clear provocation. They have to, just as america had to react to the cuban missiles.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> Forget about Iran and North Korea? Why? You really do not make sense, North Korea and Iran are threats. I really do not feel like repeating myself over and over.
> 
> Tell me this, I want to hear it from you personally, how can 10 interceptors affect the outcome of a nuclear war between China and/or Russia? I do not know how many times I said it, it wont!
> 
> No shit Canada wouldn't build a defense system for Russia, it was a "what if" scenario.
> 
> Do you know anything about ABM shields? The interceptors can not be severly close to the hostile nation, it needs to be distant enough for it to meet it in mid orbit and go for the kill. Poland is Ideal to protect the American military bases in our countires out their in Europe.



Turn the tables, imagine the US got in a rought spot economicaly and lost alot of its military power. But keept its nuclear deterant, how would american leaders react if russia first made military alliances with say canada, mexico and guatemala and made them join a new warzawa pact. Then they started building a missile shield in those countries that might in the long run have a effect on your nuclear deterant. Would that not be a insult to USA? Would any american president just bend over while the russians are lubing up or would they say **** no?

----------


## Flagg

> Forget about Iran and North Korea? Why? You really do not make sense, North Korea and Iran are threats. I really do not feel like repeating myself over and over.
> 
> Tell me this, I want to hear it from you personally, how can 10 interceptors affect the outcome of a nuclear war between China and/or Russia? I do not know how many times I said it, it wont!
> 
> No shit Canada wouldn't build a defense system for Russia, it was a "what if" scenario.
> 
> Do you know anything about ABM shields? The interceptors can not be severly close to the hostile nation, it needs to be distant enough for it to meet it in mid orbit and go for the kill. Poland is Ideal to protect the American military bases in our countires out their in Europe.


Lets just say, Iran managed to launch a Nuke that airbursts over New York. What will US retaliation be? They will obliterate the whole of Iran off the map. Are you so indoctrinated that you think the Iranians are THAT crazy that they would be prepared to cease to exist for ONE American city?

And do you honestly believe that the Russians are stupid and over-reacting?

----------


## Panzerfaust

> it wont but from russian eyes first its a huge insult, like spitting them in the face. Second for all they know its a first step to building a much larger system and one more step in nato encircling russia. *the important thing isnt how effective the system, its how much of a threat the russians feel it is in the long run. Politics has never been rational and russia will react against what they think is a clear provocation. They have to, just as america had to react to the cuban missiles.*




bingo!

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Great article by Pat Buchanan (I never heard of this guy before I saw this article, did some digging and it seems like he doesnt have all the horses in the stable? Ohh well I agree with the article atleast).

Blowback From Bear Baiting
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28053




> That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili's provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable. But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany. 
> 
> When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do? 
> 
> American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia's doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members. 
> 
> Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin's birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia's Black Sea fleet. 
> 
> When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia? 
> ...

----------


## g0dsend

If a war breaks out between United States and Russia today as we speak, Europe is already endangered as we have military bases stationed in Europe. 

Putting the Missile Defense in Poland and the Radar In Czech Republic is not changing Russia military or strategically, only is it preparing for an upcoming threat from.

Why not let every country acquire nukes? One Free nuke with every new country formed. 

Iran is trying to destroy Israel and is going to protect itself. USA is looking in its best interests in protecting Israel and we all know Iran wants Israel wiped off the map soon. Iran themselves said it, and theres are reports all over the place stating that. If your country was about to go under from a retaliation or attack from Israel wouldn't you do one last ditch effort to launch a nuke and destroy as many people as you can and with the United States bases under the microscope? Launching a SCUD or their newly tested Shahab-3 in the beginning. They are test firing a new rocket which can put satellites in low orbit, and possibly meant for ICBM propulsion. The missile defense isn't just for nuclear weapons remember. 

Iran may not be a huge "threat" today, but they sure will hell be in the near future and playing catch up is not the way to play.

Smuggling a full sized bomb into a container through customs is actually fairly easy you are right, people can smuggle in weapons, hundreds of pounds of drugs, etc. I agree that we should heighten up border protection but to defend against just customs and not other ways is not really getting us anywhere as its leaving a back door. Iran capable of making a Davy Crockett nuke is unheard of. I guess a terrorist could deploy a Davy Crockett nuke as their was always that threat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Davy Crockett have same yield as the MOAB conventional weapon? No doubt it will be devastating but not really what people think as in "nuke" and much more similar ways are able to have the same devastating effect. Still lethal doses of radiation though.

Your comparing apples to oranges here, I already discussed it already in my previous post. Theres many factors surrounding it, to put that scenario up directly is really hard to predict. Its a different geological position. And to say that 10 interceptors is a nuclear deterrent is just outright outrageous. Don't know how many times I said it 10 interceptors is nothing. Only meant for Tier II and Tier III countries.


*Flagg.*

Well first of all an Air burst would cripple the United States.

Iran would only launch if they are in the verge of non-existence, in a war between Israel and Iran. The ability to launch a nuke in the future as a last resort is very likely. I guess we all could turn cold shoulder to them and pretend nothing is going to happen between them?

Do I believe Russians are over reacting? Absolute. Do you believe 10 interceptors can halt Russia in its tracts with nuclear capability or even put in dent into it?

Russia needs an excuse for being belligerent and United States is trying to make them look belligerent.

----------


## g0dsend

Sorry, forgot to add these....

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2007/f...-112340-4811r/

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_10/Mistry

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...pace%20Booster

----------


## g0dsend

I would like to add, Russia is not threatening Poland in ways that the media portrays. The media is playing it off as soon as Poland installs them, Russia is dropping the bomb on them. 

The real "threat" is if theirs a hypothetical nuclear war between Russia and USA, Poland's interceptors are a first priority target. Love how the media plays stuff off and skews words around  :Smilie:

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> I would like to add, Russia is not threatening Poland in ways that the media portrays. The media is playing it off as soon as Poland installs them, Russia is dropping the bomb on them. 
> 
> The real "threat" is if theirs a hypothetical nuclear war between Russia and USA, Poland's interceptors are a first priority target. Love how the media plays stuff off and skews words around


Yeah I agree, the media has blown it way out of proportion. Russia has only said they will target poland. But they said it the first time several months ago, I guess it makes more headlines now.  :Hmmmm: 

But the entire war against georgia is probably a message to those neighbors that wants to join NATO.

----------


## Kärnfysikern

> If a war breaks out between United States and Russia today as we speak, Europe is already endangered as we have military bases stationed in Europe.


Yes but the current military bases are not intentionally provoking russia. Recruiting former soviet countries into NATO and building a missile shield in those countries is a clear provokation and challange towards Russia. 

Do you honestly not se why Russia would react strongly to this  :Don't know: 





> Putting the Missile Defense in Poland and the Radar In Czech Republic is not changing Russia military or strategically, only is it preparing for an upcoming threat from.


Well Russia feels differently and thats the most important thing in this situation. Why intentionaly provoke Russia? Why turn down the offer they made to host a joint installation? Why not put it at some NATO countrie that isnt at the russian border? The US is the country acting unreasonable about this, russia has made plenty of offers and tried to negotiate. You can only spit on Russia so many times before they will do something, im not saying its either right or wrong. But only a blind man would not see that its a bad idea!

Im glad france and germany is doing everything they can to prevent georgia and other sensetive countries from joining NATO.





> Iran is trying to destroy Israel and is going to protect itself. USA is looking in its best interests in protecting Israel and we all know Iran wants Israel wiped off the map soon. Iran themselves said it, and theres are reports all over the place stating that.


I dont se how helping Israel is in the best interest of the US, but thats a completely different discussion though.




> If your country was about to go under from a retaliation or attack from Israel wouldn't you do one last ditch effort to launch a nuke and destroy as many people as you can and with the United States bases under the microscope? Launching a SCUD or their newly tested Shahab-3 in the beginning. They are test firing a new rocket which can put satellites in low orbit, and possibly meant for ICBM propulsion. The missile defense isn't just for nuclear weapons remember.


But that is a very strained scenario, in the scenarion you assume Iran has nukes and that Israel would be a agressor. But Israel would be pretty damn stupid to attack a nuclear Iran, if Iran gets nukes Israel wont lift a finger against Iran. The opposit is also true, Iran wont lift a finger against Israel due to Israels nukes.

Either way the threat is to small to justify starting a new cold war! 




> Iran may not be a huge "threat" today, but they sure will hell be in the near future and playing catch up is not the way to play.



You have still not given any plausible reason for Iran to attack the US? Like I wrote earlier, have you ever seen or heard Ayatholla Khamenei act crazy? I dont like the religious bullshit anymore than anyone else, but I have no reason to belive they are crasy. Atleast one could think Khrushchev was crazy when he started banging his shoe on the tabled at a UN meeting and saying "we will burry you". Khamenei has done nothing even close to that. Ahmadinejad talks big, but he is hardly in controll of anything in Iran and his words are meaningless. A nice mouthpiece to showcase in order to rile up the population.





> Smuggling a full sized bomb into a container through customs is actually fairly easy you are right, people can smuggle in weapons, hundreds of pounds of drugs, etc. I agree that we should heighten up border protection but to defend against just customs and not other ways is not really getting us anywhere as its leaving a back door. Iran capable of making a Davy Crockett nuke is unheard of. I guess a terrorist could deploy a Davy Crockett nuke as their was always that threat. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Davy Crockett have same yield as the MOAB conventional weapon? No doubt it will be devastating but not really what people think as in "nuke" and much more similar ways are able to have the same devastating effect. Still lethal doses of radiation though.


Yes I agree that Davy Crockett like nukes are beyond Irans capabilites, I just mention that its not impossible to build suitcase nuke kind of weapons it just takes some very impressive engineering. It had a yield up to 1 kiloton. Im not sure what the yield of the MOAB is though?

My argument if I can sum it up a bit more clearly is simply that every dollar spent on the missile shield would give alot more return if used to tighten border and harbor safety. One doesnt exclude the other, but adressing the most obvious routes first seems most logical. Like I said though, I wouldnt mind one bit if you built a missile shield on US soil, *but keep it out of europe*! Is even poland or checkoslovakia on the geodesic betwen Iran and the prime US targets  :Don't know: 




> Your comparing apples to oranges here, I already discussed it already in my previous post. Theres many factors surrounding it, to put that scenario up directly is really hard to predict. Its a different geological position. And to say that 10 interceptors is a nuclear deterrent is just outright outrageous. Don't know how many times I said it 10 interceptors is nothing. Only meant for Tier II and Tier III countries.


I havent said that 10 interceptors can prevent a full out Russian attack, but look at it from the Russians point of view, america is pissing on Russian territory and trying to build a shiled that might if expanded in the future be a threat. Can you seriously not see the insult?  :Hmmmm:  Its not about rational responses, its about national pride.

Would Bush approve if Russia started building a missile shield in mexico or cuba? It wouldnt really change anything, but I bet every american would consider it a insult!

----------


## Flagg

I was unaware that Russia had offered to build a joint instalation?? Why the Hell are America saying no to that? 

That's even more reason for the ruskies to be pissed off. Whether they are over-reacting or within their justifiable rights, surely what is the point in building those instalations, if Russia WILL take that as a direct threat?

----------


## Kärnfysikern

Here are a few articles I managed to dig up about, basicly seems like Putin made a offer that was reasonable, the bush admin didnt care. So if protection against Iran is the priority, why not work with Russia when the offer is given instead of working against them? 


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ite-in-russia/




> But Mr. Putin went further yesterday, offering a new "strategic partnership" with the U.S. and urging Mr. Bush to bring more European nations into the decision-making process. He proposed having NATO oversee what would become a European missile defense shield and said early-warning centers should be set up in Brussels and Moscow.
> 
> "There would be no need to place any new facilities in Europe," Mr. Putin said. By joining forces, "the relationship of our two countries would be raised to an entirely new level. It is possible to widen the number of European partners who might be interested in resolving this question" as part of a "platform of Russia-NATO cooperation," Mr. Putin said.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...060700258.html




> ROSTOCK, Germany, June 7 -- After days of escalating rhetoric about missile defense, Russian President Vladimir Putin made a surprise offer to President Bush on Thursday, proposing that Russia join with the United States and some of its European allies to operate a shield intended against missile threats from Iran.
> 
> Meeting with Bush during the summit of the Group of Eight industrialized nations, Putin suggested that a Soviet-era radar installation that Russia operates in the Caspian Sea country of Azerbaijan could feed real-time data into the planned system.
> 
> Bush afterward described Putin's offer as "interesting" -- the United States has been pressing Russia to take part in such a system since the 1990s. Both presidents said Russian and U.S. military and diplomatic officials would meet to discuss the idea further.


http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...1/ai_n19208257




> Russian President Vladimir Putin proposed Thursday that the United States and Russia jointly use a radar system in the central Asian country of Azerbaijan to erect a missile shield that would protect all of Europe.
> 
> Putin said Moscow will drop its opposition to the planned missile shield in central Europe and that he will not seek to retarget his country's missiles on Europe as he threatened to if Washington accepts his proposal.





This seems like a reasonable demand aswell given the situation

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...546322,00.html




> Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has demanded that Russia be allowed 'permanent' access to planned US missile shield defense facilities in Eastern Europe. His wish seems unlikely to be granted.
> 
> Russia has demanded that its military be allowed constant access to planned US missile defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.
> 
> "In all these many proposals," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told Ekho Moskvy radio station, according to Reuters, "we are interested only in two things: the permanent presence of our officers and reliable technological means of monitoring (activity at the sites)."
> 
> "For us it is important that we should see second-by-second where the radar is looking," Lavrov added, "and what is happening at the … base in the Czech Republic."

----------


## g0dsend

Russia and the United States have differernt views on this. I feel that a joint missile defense is the best option to go, but for some reason I guess they didnt agree with each other on terms. I like Bush's military ideals and his buildup in ways, but in other ways sometimes hes just stupid. 

Poland being a target, so is almost European nation as they host a United States Base. Why did they put it in Poland? Iam not sure and everyone is unsure, but I doubt it is to provoke Russia. From what I read, its their in a stragetic stand point.

Israels Americas allie, and they need/want our protection. Israel said that they do not want a Nuclear Iran, so if Iran starts showing signs of nuclear prolifiation then Israel is going to strike their nuclear assets.


If their is a war with Israel and Iran, which is likely in the near future, USA is going to be in the microscope for a last ditch effort from Iran. I should say United States foreign bases, allies, and troops deployed, Iran hitting homeland is very far reached. Of course the fuse for the war would be Nuclear weapons from either side. The only reasonable and probable war starter is Iran acquiring or close to acquirng nukes. 

Not that I like it and I'm highly against it, the rumors of Bush attacking Iran actally puts stress on everyone. Right or wrong I don't want to see it happen cause our army and our allies armies is within striking distance of their missiles. I know if I was Iran I would be pushing for a nuclear weapon secretly to reveal to the world for global political power.

Bush approving a missile shield in Cuba and Mexico, as I said is two differnt subjects. Your comparing two totally diffent things and too many factors that go into it.

----------


## gixxerboy1

> Russia and the United States have differernt views on this. I feel that a joint missile defense is the best option to go, but for some reason I guess they didnt agree with each other on terms. I like Bush's military ideals and his buildup in ways, but in other ways sometimes hes just stupid. 
> 
> Poland being a target, so is almost European nation as they host a United States Base. Why did they put it in Poland? Iam not sure and everyone is unsure, but I doubt it is to provoke Russia. From what I read, its their in a stragetic stand point.
> 
> *Israels Americas allie, and they need/want our protection*. Israel said that they do not want a Nuclear Iran, so if Iran starts showing signs of nuclear prolifiation then Israel is going to strike their nuclear assets.
> 
> 
> If their is a war with Israel and Iran, which is likely in the near future, USA is going to be in the microscope for a last ditch effort from Iran. I should say United States foreign bases, allies, and troops deployed, Iran hitting homeland is very far reached. Of course the fuse for the war would be Nuclear weapons from either side. The only reasonable and probable war starter is Iran acquiring or close to acquirng nukes. 
> 
> ...


Israel is more then capable of defending themselves.

----------


## Prada

> Israel is more then capable of defending themselves.


Not necessarily, they need backing and aide from the U.S.

----------


## gixxerboy1

what kind of aid are you talking about? financial, military?

----------

