Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Polish Missile-shield :new Reason For Trouble  
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Posted (6 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3234 times:

With the hasty decision to agree on the installation of an American missile-installation in Poland the Geo-strategist might have some new meat for digestion...
Reactions from Russian military just took 24 hour to hit the wires- Polish missile sites would-of course- now be considered as a first strike targets in case of a major conflict .
For many military analysts there was absolutely no dam reason to proceed with the project to install those missiles-specially when using Iran as a lame-duck argument.
If you want to intercept Iranian long rang missiles targeting Europe,you rather install your anti-missile defence rather in Greece ,Turkey or Italy and not just in front of the Russians,who immediately will smell the fake reasons used for the charade..
In pure technical terms a ship-based anti-missile systems would be much more efficient -it could be based in the Black-sea or the Eastern-mediterranean rather than just under the Russians nose.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003620.html

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...N_5xk8Z20qcSJG0MilftDpsLwD92INHO80


Please respect animals - don't eat them...
72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineIliriBDL From Germany, joined May 2007, 1205 posts, RR: 14
Reply 1, posted (6 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3221 times:

It's great that Poland agreed to the deal, Europe needs protection from evil people that will do anything in their power to down democracy. (putin)


delta.com
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (6 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3210 times:

Personally, I figure that Europe ought to be doing this themselves. Technically speaking, if Europe is in range of Iranian missiles loaded with whatever they can cook up, then it's incumbent on the EU to step up to the plate and protect their own backsides.

Europe's got a real problem with Putin and his crew next door.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25059 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (6 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3211 times:



Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
hasty decision

And a very good one inlight of the bullish actions of the Russiana

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
Reactions from Russian military just took 24 hour to hit the wires- Polish missile sites would-of course- now be considered as a first strike targets in case of a major conflict .

And this exactly shows the intentions of Russia. Europe will hopefully wake up and understand that Russian Bear is not their best friend, and its quite dangerous to be in bed with it.

Anyhow - why do the Russians care about a defensive system if they have no threating intentions against Europe?

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
Reactions from Russian military just took 24 hour to hit the wires- Polish missile sites would-of course- now be considered as a first strike targets in case of a major conflict .

Here you are wrong. In order to intercept a missle, the further back you are the better.

The closer one is to the launch site, the more difficult it is intercept as reaction time is reduced and the trejectory might require one to chase the missle as it move away from the interceptor site.
Being farther back, and closer to potential targets is much better for an interceptor, as it not only allows for more time, however one is interception a target as its pretty much commitied and in likely on an entry trajectory path that is very rather easy to calculate and is very unlikely to change in decent, unlike during the assent phase if one was close to the launch site.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 4, posted (6 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3197 times:



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 2):
Personally, I figure that Europe ought to be doing this themselves. Technically speaking, if Europe is in range of Iranian missiles loaded with whatever they can cook up, then it's incumbent on the EU to step up to the plate and protect their own backsides.

Europe does not have any issue with Iranian missiles -why should it ?
Nobody in Europe is threatening Tehran other than some retarded Generals in Poland or Bernard Kouchner,who made a Freudian slip when he considered to "..carry war to Iran"...
(But who cares about Kouchner or Polish generals anyhow ...)
The Germans have persitantly be reluctant to agree supporting this strange idea-maybe because they are the founders of "Realpolitik..."
If the Americans think they sleep better with a missile -shield against Russian Ballistic missiles,why use Iran as a fake argument?
And if those ant-missile missiles are better working if launched late in order to better track the aggressor's weapon,install them in the UK...you win at least 4 minutes as compared to Poland...



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 5, posted (6 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3192 times:



Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
In pure technical terms a ship-based anti-missile systems would be much more efficient -it could be based in the Black-sea or the Eastern-mediterranean rather than just under the Russians nose.



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 2):
Personally, I figure that Europe ought to be doing this themselves. Technically speaking, if Europe is in range of Iranian missiles loaded with whatever they can cook up, then it's incumbent on the EU to step up to the plate and protect their own backsides.

Or more particularly why is the site in N Poland.

A great circle route to London from Tehran goes over S Poland not N Poland. Might be a help for Oslo, is Norway having a problem with Iran?

However, N Poland is on the Gt Circle route to NY. Funny thing that.

What about Los Angeles? Well, near Moscow would be really good to protect LA, so best ask Mr P really niceways.

And why have the detection system so far from the supposed launch area? Why not take up the Russian invitation? Oh they are not to be trusted. Forgot.

I await with interest an explanation of why it is better to DETECT them later in flight, rather than early in their flight.


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8957 posts, RR: 40
Reply 6, posted (6 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3192 times:

When was NATO, a defensive alliance, ever a threat to the Soviet Union? Yet it was still seen as a threat.

Was the Warsaw Pact seen with good eyes by the West/NATO?

If the development of defensive weaponry wasn't destabilizing, why is it that it spurs development of new offensive weaponry?



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3172 times:

That's OK, Europe.

Pull the pillow over your head and pretend that Russia doesn't exist and that you're not within range of Iran's missile program. I don't give a fat rat's ass.

I mean, it worked so well in the thirties, right?


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3909 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (6 years 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 3170 times:



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 2):
Personally, I figure that Europe ought to be doing this themselves. Technically speaking, if Europe is in range of Iranian missiles loaded with whatever they can cook up, then it's incumbent on the EU to step up to the plate and protect their own backsides.

Problem is, by and large a missile defence shield is largely a method of self-delusion - they cost huge amounts of money, and they guarantee nothing.

So, we practically bankrupt ourselves (the cost of the US system is a projected $53billion for the years 2004 to 2009 - that's huge), and we gain zero protection against massed missile attacks, and basically zero protection against anyone else - our anti-missile shield takes out Irans missile threat, and Irans leaders deliver the (theoretical) nuclear warhead by Ford Pinto.

So, whats actually in it for us? Not a whole lot from what I can see.


User currently offlineBeaucaire From Syria, joined Sep 2003, 5252 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (6 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3150 times:



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 7):
That's OK, Europe.

Pull the pillow over your head and pretend that Russia doesn't exist and that you're not within range of Iran's missile program. I don't give a fat rat's ass.

Europe has paid a heavy price in casualties throughout the last world-war - on both sides.
So have other countries in different lands-but Europe has to live and deal with Moscow on a day-to -day basis.
The Russians are our neighbours -not like somewhere in the US mid-west where, your major enemies are Halloween pumpkins or crazy weapon-freaks on shoot-out rampages in schools...
We have now economic interests,energy dependencies,common corporations,tourism,renewed trust among people ( if not by politicians..). Russians are all over the place in Europe,Middle East,Turkey..they are rather considered (slightly alcoholic ) customers than enemies-which is great !
So the European perspective is maybe a little different one than the perspective of think-tank driven media-comments in the US about war -mongering Russians.They are not-they are concerned about their backyard falling apart into the hands of the former enemy and joining a military alliance that has been the educated worst enemy imagination could create.
This has absolutely nothing to do with apeasement or giving in into threats-it has to do with grown confidence among people.
Whenever we speak about Russian-US relations, military aspects dominate the talks-why is that ? It's not like that in Germany,Turkey,Italy or Dubai..maybe a matter of common sens maturity and a strong feeling of being fed up with conflicts.
Why is Condoleezza in her rethoric better than a Russian foreign minister ? She is not-she has a different perspective -that's all.



Please respect animals - don't eat them...
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (6 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3143 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 8):
So, whats actually in it for us? Not a whole lot from what I can see.

I dunno....is it protecting the Falklands? You ARE there, aren't you? On the other hand yours could be a flag of convenience like mine. I do claim the tricolor of course, with some small modifications.

I do not see that there's anything in it for Europe that I am willing to pay for as a resident of a midwestern state, particularly if my government has to borrow the money from the Chinese to build it....and that's the big distinction.

They're big boys now, way I see it. Dealing with Russia is your own lookout.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16857 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (6 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3138 times:



Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 4):
If the Americans think they sleep better with a missile -shield against Russian Ballistic missiles,why use Iran as a fake argument?

There's no fake argument, the missile defense shield is intended to protect against a country like Iran who has a small arsenal. There will only be ten interceptor missiles in Europe, that is more than enough to knock out anything Iran could put up. It's no where near adequate against Russia who still has "thousands" of Nuclear warheads, if the system were designed to defend against the Russian arsenal there would be hundreds if not over a thousand of these interceptor missiles spread out across Europe as Hawk missiles were during the Cold War.

For the Russians to defeat the Missile defense system they need to launch 11 missiles, there are only ten interceptor missiles. The system is designed to protect against Countries like Iran, who would only be able to scratch a couple long range missiles together.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3909 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (6 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3135 times:



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
I do not see that there's anything in it for Europe that I am willing to pay for as a resident of a midwestern state, particularly if my government has to borrow the money from the Chinese to build it....and that's the big distinction.

As a Subject of Her Royal Majesty, I would prefer it if you didn't waste your money either - but you aren't doing it for altruistic reasons, as the missile shield is protecting your country as well, and its better to shoot down the (potentially radioactive and toxic) missiles over someone elses territory than your own.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 3110 times:



Quoting Moo (Reply 12):
As a Subject of Her Royal Majesty, I would prefer it if you didn't waste your money either - but you aren't doing it for altruistic reasons, as the missile shield is protecting your country as well, and its better to shoot down the (potentially radioactive and toxic) missiles over someone elses territory than your own.

I do not see what being a subject of the Missus at Windsor has to do with it, although her face is plastered all over currency up north-I'm at a loss to explain that and it'll only get worse when His Nibs becomes His Royal Nibs....oh, well, nevermind....where was I?

The canard about wanting to drop them in other people's back yards rather than our own is, well, bogus. That presupposes that those missiles would be intended strictly for we'uns-and that's a big mistake to make, m'good fellow.

I think the idea is that they'd burn up in the atmosphere. It's simply easier to shoot down a moving target if you're standing still and closer to it, as any trapshooter could tell you...reduces the variables? Better to have them burn up in the atmosphere and crash rather than get where they're going to do what they're intended to, don't you see?

The other point is that the Iranians do not currently have a launch vehicle capable of reaching these shores. The Russians do, but that is a subject of M.A.D., which is still in existence as a normative force. That's really not where the threat originates.

Here's a pretty good rundown on their program.

http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief005-26.htm

and a range map.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iran/missile/


User currently offlineOV735 From Estonia, joined Jan 2004, 909 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (6 years 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3059 times:



Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 9):
Whenever we speak about Russian-US relations, military aspects dominate the talks-why is that ? It's not like that in Germany,Turkey,Italy or Dubai..maybe a matter of common sens maturity and a strong feeling of being fed up with conflicts.

I would argue that Germany, Turkey, Italy or Dubai are rather blue-eyed. Believing that an aggressive nation that has murdered, oppressed and persecuted millions and millions of people over the last century (and gotten away with it, mainly because they were on the winning side of the WWII), has somehow changed into a peace-loving democracy over the few last decades is a bit naive, in my opinion. Russia is a growing threat, and will remain one. Germany as the European leading industrial country is of course deeply dependent on Russian gas and oil resources, and therefore they don't have the balls to say or do anything bad about Russia (think Gerhard Schröder, for example).

It is very good that the Europeans have a strong feeling of being fed up with conflicts. It is a very welcomed feeling. I love people who have a strong feeling of being fed up with conflicts. In fact, I have that feeling myself even. Except for one thing, of course. The big brown bear living next door is strengthening his military and obviously isn't in that mood yet, as he doesn't miss one chance to threat other countries or even attack them. As Russia grows stronger, it is more and more simple for them to take advantage of the blue-ey... oh, sorry, I mean the common sense and maturity, of the Europeans.  Wink

In that light, I think the missile shield makes perfect sense. Even if it is supposed to operate against the imaginary Iranian nukes, given its position, it has a good chance to work on Russia as well. Which is good, because while Western Europe is hiding their head in sand, the former Eastern Bloc countries like Czech Republic and Poland still remember well what an armed conflict with the Soviet Union feels like.

That's my 2 cents on the matter.


User currently offlineScotty From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (6 years 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 3001 times:



Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 9):
This has absolutely nothing to do with apeasement or giving in into threats-it has to do with grown confidence among people.

It has to do with the US starting to believe that the EU represents a more stable power bloc in global economic and political terms than the US and that it offers a more mature negotiating partner for the rest of the world - particularly Russia and countries like Iran which the US only wants to demonise.

Maybe because it IS so sick of the conflicts of the 20th century that Europe wants to make sure it never happens again


User currently offlineRedFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4316 posts, RR: 28
Reply 16, posted (6 years 1 week ago) and read 2968 times:



Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
With the hasty decision to agree on the installation of an American missile-installation in Poland

Just curious, but what was so hasty about it, Beaucaire? Perhaps the formal agreement itself was "hasty"; however, I've been reading about Poland being the base for an anti-missile system for a number of years now.

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
If you want to intercept Iranian long rang missiles targeting Europe,you rather install your anti-missile defence rather in Greece ,Turkey or Italy and not just in front of the Russians,who immediately will smell the fake reasons used for the charade..

That MAY (I emphasize the 'may' because there might be technical reasons for doing otherwise) be true, but something tells me the Poles are a lot more amenable to basing the system in their country. As long as it will work being based in Poland then I assume the DoD took the path of least resistance. The Poles are known to appreciate the U.S. more than other European nations. And I've experienced that first-hand in my travels.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 2):
Personally, I figure that Europe ought to be doing this themselves. Technically speaking, if Europe is in range of Iranian missiles loaded with whatever they can cook up, then it's incumbent on the EU to step up to the plate and protect their own backsides.

 checkmark 

Quoting Moo (Reply 8):
Problem is, by and large a missile defence shield is largely a method of self-delusion - they cost huge amounts of money, and they guarantee nothing.

They are not infallible, but they certainly give an aggressor plenty of reasons to second guess the merits of a strike. And as the system matures over the coming years, as it already has been maturing, the success rate will only increase further and the costs will diminish. This is true for any new hi-tech system. The ABMS is no different.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 10):
I do not see that there's anything in it for Europe that I am willing to pay for as a resident of a midwestern state, particularly if my government has to borrow the money from the Chinese to build it....and that's the big distinction.

They're big boys now, way I see it. Dealing with Russia is your own lookout.

 checkmark  I couldn't have stated it any better.



I'm not a racist...I hate Biden, too.
User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2952 times:



Quoting Scotty (Reply 15):
It has to do with the US starting to believe that the EU represents a more stable power bloc in global economic and political terms than the US and that it offers a more mature negotiating partner for the rest of the world - particularly Russia and countries like Iran which the US only wants to demonise.

Maybe because it IS so sick of the conflicts of the 20th century that Europe wants to make sure it never happens again

Lemme see if I got this right.

you think that we think that youse are a more stable block and offersa more mature negotiating partner for the rest of the world? Negotiating what?

Do you think you can buy peace when all Putin has to do is snap his fingers and half the homes in Europe will go unheated this winter?


And the reason for all this is because you're all so sick of the brutality of the 20th century that you want to make sure it never happens again?

The average American could be forgiven for thinking that much of the brutality of the 20th century that you speak of you brought upon yourselves, so, yeah, you probably are sick of it. That's Europe's crazy aunt in the upstairs closet, isn't it.

However, the writing's on the wall....better not fuck with Russia there, fellas.


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2943 times:



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 17):
Do you think you can buy peace when all Putin has to do is snap his fingers and half the homes in Europe will go unheated this winter?

I rather doubt it. On the other hand, poking a stick up the left nostril of an angry bear will only heat those houses in a one off manner, occasioned if the bear decides to lay waste to more than the fields of the Gauls.

Still no explanation of how a few missiles in N Poland are going to protect, say Paris, or probably even Berlin from an Iranian attack. They still seem to me to be placed to protect NY - though why it needs to be protected from Iran is beyond me.

But best keep a careful eye on all those Ford Pintos (or is that a carful eye?).


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2924 times:



Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 4):
Nobody in Europe is threatening Tehran other than some retarded Generals in Poland or Bernard Kouchner,who made a Freudian slip when he considered to "..carry war to Iran"...
(But who cares about Kouchner or Polish generals anyhow ...)

Please show me a quote from these Polish generals you wish to insult concerning Iran.

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
If you want to intercept Iranian long rang missiles targeting Europe,you rather install your anti-missile defence rather in Greece ,Turkey or Italy and not just in front of the Russians,who immediately will smell the fake reasons used for the charade..

No...for the same reasons why the interceptors in Poland are poorly located to interecept Russian missiles.

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
In pure technical terms a ship-based anti-missile systems would be much more efficient -it could be based in the Black-sea or the Eastern-mediterranean rather than just under the Russians nose.

It would be more efficient, but do you know how much the Russians would bitch and moan then? That would be a REAL threat to their deterrent, one they couldn't track like a fixed site in Alaska.

This is a mountain out of a mole hill by Putin made so that his beloved neo-Stalinist ideals can have some sort of legitimacy.

Quoting Beaucaire (Reply 9):
The Russians are our neighbours -not like somewhere in the US mid-west where, your major enemies are Halloween pumpkins or crazy weapon-freaks on shoot-out rampages in schools...

You might want to ask yourself if the Russians actually view you the same way. They seem quite content to occupy at least half of Europe. And you seem selfish enough to let those people suffer again so that you can continue your consumerism unfettered. If it has nothing to do with appeasement, then stand up for yourselves when necessary and stand together as one EU. Putin's strategy has been divide and conquer. That seems to suggest serious holes that he intends to exploit.

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2915 times:



Quoting Baroque (Reply 18):
Still no explanation of how a few missiles in N Poland are going to protect, say Paris, or probably even Berlin from an Iranian attack.

If I was a betting man, I'd say that the Iranian 'missile threat' is a limited one. That is, if they can get the No Dong, Taepo Dong, Big Dong, or Long Dong Daddy or whatever it is they reverse engineered from the North Koreans and send it off in the general direction of wherever...

I mean, with the technology Iran's got there's really no way of predicting where the sumbitch will fetch up...I think the idea would be to hit it before it reached its apogee and maybe drop it down Chechnya way. Poland's strategically placed to do that. You know, they're almost to where we were with Redstone in the late 40s except that theirs is an unreliable Korean knockoff and they don't yet have a working warhead of the nuke type-but if they can make pesticides they can make Sarin and if they have a pharmaceutical factory they can also probably cook up serviceable anthrax powder too.

Now....thinking further...if the Iranians were to lob one or two missiles in the general direction of Europe, they'd most likely aim them at high value targets that are big-like cities. They're not going to be driving them through bathroom windows like we do because they don't know how to do that. So that's going to serve to restrict the targets and make it a safer bet to shoot em on the wing.

I think it's far more likely that if the Iranians ever get it mastered to where they can launch something with a warhead-biological, chemical, bomb or dirty warhead (most likely) and an idea that it could hit something the target will most likely be Israel. In that case it would be far better for everyone to shoot that sumbitch down, because if they manage to put it on a target, there'll be payback that will make your head spin. It really would be suicidal on the part of the Iranian government to play that card, but I'm not convinced they're not capable of it...for sure the Iranians are several fries short of a Happy Meal.

I may have remarked on this before but any trapshooter will tell you it's best to get close to the bird with your feet firmly planted and hit the bastard hard before he's really gotten his bird thing going.


User currently offlineScotty From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, RR: 3
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2876 times:



Quoting Boeing4ever (Reply 19):
seem quite content to occupy at least half of Europe

Russia does not occupy at least half of Europe. Fact


User currently offlineScotty From UK - Scotland, joined Dec 1999, 1875 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2868 times:



Quoting Dougloid (Reply 17):
you think that we think that youse are a more stable block and offersa more mature negotiating partner for the rest of the world?

Yes

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 17):
Do you think you can buy peace when all Putin has to do is snap his fingers and half the homes in Europe will go unheated this winter?

Of course not but as Churchill said "jaw jaw is better than war war". And if he did turn the gas off then we dont pay the bills.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 17):
And the reason for all this is because you're all so sick of the brutality of the 20th century that you want to make sure it never happens again?

Its one of them. I am willing to predict that there will never be another war between Western European nations and probably no major conflict between any member of the EU including the recently accesses nations. Reality - Russia does more and more business with the EU and we welcome Russian citizens to our countries. In spite of the current hysteria, Russia is no longer a closed country and we work with them as partners in spite of Generals going off message and threatening daft things. Its been up to the EU to broker a Georgian ceasefire whilst the US Neocons resort to type and re-enact the Cold War via CNN

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 17):
The average American could be forgiven for thinking that much of the brutality of the 20th century that you speak of you brought upon yourselves, so, yeah, you probably are sick of it.

We did. And are. And have hopefully learned the lessons.

Quoting Dougloid (Reply 17):
However, the writing's on the wall....better not fuck with Russia there, fellas.

Pessimist.

btw I didnt realise that France was part of the US

and vote Obama


User currently offlineBoeing4ever From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2813 times:



Quoting Scotty (Reply 21):
Russia does not occupy at least half of Europe. Fact

Russia DID occupy half of Europe. Fact #1

Russia threw hissy fits for the past 20 years when that other half rejoined the rest of Europe. Fact #2.

Russia was pissed at first in the early '90s when their troops were bloodlessly tossed out of Europe. They were then pissed when their former victims joined NATO and shielded themselves from further Russia agression. They were then pissed off when that half joined the EU to bolster their economies and complete the transition away from Communism. Always pissed off, never a congratulatory note. Yeah, such a nice neighbor.  Yeah sure

 airplane B4e-Forever New Frontiers airplane 


User currently offlineDreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 8826 posts, RR: 24
Reply 24, posted (6 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2811 times:

I spent years in Russia during the 90s. I made many friends, and thoroughly enjoyed my contact with them. There is a pathos around Russians unlike any people I know. I also spent some time in Georgia, and can't really say the same. I found Georgians to be rather conniving.

That said, I have no doubt whatsoever that Russia engineered this entire event from start to finish. They may have gotten rid of communism, but their acceptance of strongman dictators and their ways is legendary. As any Russian - he will tell you that it is their fate to live under tyrants.

The EU has now expanded into Eastern Europe and calls itself the equal (or better) of the USA. I wonder how they will react when an EU member state is directly attacked by Russia. I figure it's only a matter of time. I lived in Europe for 20 years, and I doubt that they will react in any way until Russian tanks are rolling into

Quoting Beaucaire (Thread starter):
For many military analysts there was absolutely no dam reason to proceed with the project to install those missiles-specially when using Iran as a lame-duck argument.

There is also absolutely no reason for Moscow to bitch about a system that is defensive only. Are they afraid of Poland invading Russia? I don't think so.

With their invasion of Georgia, Russia's agressiveness has been made clear - the only reason they don't like Poland (or any 'near-abroad' nation) having such a system is they have ideas of reimposing control over them, if necessary by invasion.



Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 Post contains links Dougloid : I am a happy pessimist. Best of luck to you boys. I'm glad I don't have to be like the gennelmun from Estonia considering the Bear licking his chops
26 Baroque : Like most powers, they are not keen on salami tactics being practiced on them.
27 Tu204 : I do not understand what all the fuss is about! On both sides. First of all, regarding our comments - what do you expect? It is a military target, ofc
28 OV735 : I would say the meaning of it is similar to Russia sending its Tu-95 bombers on "training missions" to US border areas. The Bears are an easy catch f
29 Dreadnought : By mutual treaty, they are supposed to be pointed at an empty part of the pacific ocean. I hope you guys are living up to that. Granted, it only take
30 IAirAllie : The Russians pushed them past the tipping point when they brutalized Georgia. All nearby neighbors of Russia are on edge. I know my relatives in Eston
31 Dreadnought : I was curious about that. Notice how when the US invaded Iraq (in spite of all the UN resolutions and the long history of Saddam Hussein), millions o
32 Haggis79 : well, I don't say the Russians are not to blame.... but still: the war was actually started by Georgia - they tried to fight their renegade region (S
33 Haggis79 : well, imagine Russia would station interceptor missiles in Cuba to shield themselves from being attacked from, say, Mexico (for the sake of the argum
34 IAirAllie : BULL it was started by russian agitators in the Southern Ossetia region. The Georgians were only protecting their territory. Their pre-soviet interna
35 Post contains links and images Dreadnought : The missiles have to be close to the target, for trajectory reasons. The interceptors in Poland are placed to defend potential targets in eastern NAT
36 RedFlyer : That is a big myth. Nobody ever loved the US back then, they certainly don't now, and regardless of future changes in global politics they never will
37 Dougloid : Hey, Red....ever read "the Ugly American"?
38 Baroque : And Russian missiles in Cuba would be not much worse situated to stop an attack from Mexico on Dallas as the N Poland ones are for Berlin from Iran.
39 Post contains links Haggis79 : sorry, but I don't buy that.... 1) it is much better to have the interceptors close to launch point than to target... because close to target the mis
40 Baroque : " target=_blank>http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=T...TYLE= But as I pointed out before, N Poland IS on the way to NY, and that is not the scenic ro
41 11Bravo : I assume you are referring to the whole Guantanamo issue with this statement, but you are making a sweeping generalization regarding the legal rights
42 Haggis79 : no, I refer to the treatment I must undergo when trying to enter the US as a tourist or for business. It is actually the duty of the immigration offi
43 11Bravo : You mean being finger-printed and photographed? That is hardly a serious violation of your rights, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Pres
44 Post contains links Haggis79 : does "privacy of electronic communication" ring a bell? yes, I do (amongst others), and I take the freedom to choose by myself if being finger-printe
45 Post contains links LAXintl : Again you do not understand basic military planning, nor the physics involved. Lets assume the US builds interceptor base in Turkey. If Iran launched
46 Wardialer : For one thing...Im for it...ANother thing...is that its a waste of money in the first place. Now, If Iran says or commits to its words that its not pr
47 Haggis79 : that would be indeed silly if it was true... however, AFAIK the Russians are more concerned about the balance of power becoming imbalanced - i.e. the
48 DfwRevolution : And for the umpteenth time: how do 10 interceptors based in Poland diminish Russia's ability to strike the United States with hundreds of warheads? T
49 Dougloid : This is the most stupid thing I've ever heard of. Haggis, do you not remember what happened here? And the role foreign travelers played in it? We're
50 11Bravo : ...., but you cannot keep your identity anonomous if you wish to enter the country. You must provide DHS with sufficiently detailed confirmation so t
51 Beaucaire : So far the result based on the announcement for the installation of the Polish-missile systems is great.. -Russia declares it will base more troops in
52 Boeing4ever : A result of the Georgian conflict, NOT the missile deal. Announced WELL before the missile deal and not surprising given that Hugo Chavez has been co
53 StasisLAX : Furthermore, it's about Comrade Putin's burning desire to control the flow of energy resources into Europe from Russia and former Soviet republics in
54 Baroque : I think you might be mistaking the role of cronies within the oil industry although it is difficult to tell. I would think control rather than drivin
55 L410Turbolet : Unfortunately he's been spot on. The French-German vs. British-Swedish-CEE European split within the EU and resulting failure of the EU to have a bac
56 Dougloid : As a point of information, August 21, 1968 was the date that Russian tanks rolled into Prague and smashed the Dubcek reform movement. Let's make sure
57 OV735 : Do you honestly believe that Russia orchestrated a military campaign of this size and duration in a matter of hours after the Georgian forces started
58 Mortyman : There are several reaosns why I think Russia is angry. * More and more of it's old East block countries are becoming members of NATO and EU. The Russi
59 RedFlyer : I read the book back in High School. Interesting you should bring it up because that book was written back in the 1950's and I don't believe its argu
60 Dougloid : I think the fact that a large number of Americans thinking they've got to placeCanadian flags all over everything as a way of avoiding the usual slin
61 OV735 : The background, of course, is that these East Block countries see Russia as a threat. Not to mention 5+ decades of death and despair the Soviet syste
62 Post contains links Baroque : You are not wrong of course, but there is no way that is going to be a popular notion after the Action Memo. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/s
63 Redflyer : That could very well be. However, I've always thought people did that from a security standpoint, e.g., don't want to make yourself a target for some
64 Victrola : The Georgians were trying to keep a part Perhaps the people of South Ossetia and Abkazia have no more desire to be part of Georgia than your country
65 OV735 : I'm not questioning their right, or desire, for independence. I'm just saying that: 1) the desire should be driven by the Ossetians themselves, not t
66 MD11Engineer : Doug, I think here the problem is perception. In Europe generally you are only fingerprinted if you are under suspicion of having committed a serious
67 Dreadnought : I disagree. I have lived in Europe, and it is very difficult to "disappear" in Europe. You are required to register at the local Mairie, Rathaus or w
68 MD11Engineer : Happens here as well. I knew some people who never bothered to register (due to laziness) and lived like this for many years. As long as you e.g. don
69 Victrola : I'm not sure it should be considered a puppet government. Do you not think that the majority of the South Ossetians support this government? Your sec
70 OV735 : It gets its orders from Moscow, it is supported by Moscow. It conducted the provocation while the Russian so-called peacekeepers stood by and did not
71 MD11Engineer : I'd be interested to see if the oil pipeline has been sabotaged by the Russians, e.g. pumping stations destroyed. IMO this is the main reason for the
72 Baroque : As far as I can gather, Jan, although the maps are poor, the line is S of Tbilisi. It was reported on one TV station that the Russian fires a missile
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
A New Reason For Going To Iraq posted Tue Oct 12 2004 17:21:59 by Oly720man
New Season For The A.net Fantasy Soccer League posted Tue Nov 20 2007 14:21:18 by N1120A
Just Took The New C-Class For A Test Drive posted Thu Aug 16 2007 04:45:27 by Springbok747
Any New Kits For The Upcoming Prem League Season? posted Wed Jul 12 2006 11:35:16 by Thom@s
New Game For The Non Av-er's posted Wed Apr 12 2006 22:25:23 by AAFLT1871
A New Use For The PS3! posted Wed Jan 11 2006 20:52:42 by Daleaholic
Is Religion The Reason For World's Biggest Wars? posted Tue Dec 27 2005 19:47:21 by Kay
New Phraseswords For The 2004 Election posted Tue Nov 2 2004 02:26:23 by Espion007
Could This Be The Reason For Being Anti-Mexican? posted Wed Dec 24 2003 00:42:31 by Marcus
The Reason For The NYC Blackout. posted Tue Sep 9 2003 20:29:17 by Galaxy5