American missile-defence that Europe doesn't need.

[NewSith]

Star Wars Episode II (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-15857431)

[Geist]

*Sigh*

[Baneblade]

Who cares? Really. We don't need a missile defense system, we haven't needed one for almost 30 years.

[Traak]

At least, we don't need one until Iran has nuclear... wait a minute...

"Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned that missiles could be deployed on the EU's borders if the US pursues its missile defence plans."

What is funny is that the Russian president is saying "Your ability to defend yourself against incoming nuclear missiles is something I find threatening."

That's like saying "Your ability to prevent me from shooting you is something I take as a threat."

[NewSith]

At least, we don't need one until Iran has nuclear... wait a minute...

"Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned that Russian own MDS could be deployed on the EU's borders if the US pursues its missile defence plans."

What is funny is that the Russian president is saying "Your ability to defend yourself against incoming nuclear missiles is something I find threatening."

That's like saying "Your ability to prevent me from shooting you is something I take as a threat."

Let's turn the tables - US places the thing. US launches missiles at Russia; Russia launches missiles at US. US can spot missile in 2 stages of launch. RU can only spot on a single stage of launch.

Have you though what would US say if Russian MDS was deployed in North America?

[Vash02]

Would be a pointless move, nuclear armed subs can fire from any sea on the planet.

[Khottabych]

So, friends, take it easy. It's just crazy politics games. They just try to solve another big problem, to try to get out from that deep economical asshole in which all countries around the world are sitting.
And this is most foolish decision, which could be.
We already had the same in 60's.
That guys was in one step behind "red button", and had stopped in time.
Because they knew all about the REAL LAST END OF THE WORLD.

[Baneblade]

At least, we don't need one until Iran has nuclear... wait a minute...

"Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has warned that missiles could be deployed on the EU's borders if the US pursues its missile defence plans."

What is funny is that the Russian president is saying "Your ability to defend yourself against incoming nuclear missiles is something I find threatening."

That's like saying "Your ability to prevent me from shooting you is something I take as a threat."

We could give Iran a missile and still not need a missile defense system.

[MrVicchio]

Would be a pointless move, nuclear armed subs can fire from any sea on the planet.

Except the Russian Boomer aren't worth a shit, the only Navy with a viable ICBM threat from the sea is the USA. The MDS is only a last ditch affair to stop a few missiles, launched by a small state like Iran, rather then defend against an all out nuclear exchange, and it wouldn't stop EASTWARD missiles flying from Siberia towards the USA. So the Russians are being rather dishonest about their "concerns" to begin with.

[Sirisian]

This Iran article went under the radar (http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/28/world/asia/iran-blast/index.html).

I'm not sure why Russia would feel threatened. Such a system would not stop or warn against a submarine launch. Must be a random political gesture against weapons.

[NewSith]

This Iran article went under the radar (http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/28/world/asia/iran-blast/index.html).

I'm not sure why Russia would feel threatened. Such a system would not stop or warn against a submarine launch. Must be a random political gesture against weapons.

Thing is, that this gesture is self-advertisment for current president due to upcoming election and nothing. He adopted the thing earlier.


Yet, I was against this MDS from the very start. Because I imagine a scenario where WE (as in "Russia") are getting attacked (not exactly by the US, but some NATO country for example, while NATO points at Russia as at agressor, I mean we've all seen what happened with South Ossetia war, haven't we?) without the ability to strike back. All these talks about MDS not being able to detect a sub launch are rubbish. I mean, what's the point of Missile Defense that doesn't defend against missiles?

Speaking of the devil:
Here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war, poor Georgians and evil Russians that killed unarmed troopers, disobeyed ceasefire and ate 10000 Georfian babies for breakfast next morning even now.

[Sirisian]

All these talks about MDS not being able to detect a sub launch are rubbish. I mean, what's the point of Missile Defense that doesn't defend against missiles?
An MDS really only defends against a surface launch where it can be detected tracked and intercepted. A nuclear submarine launch doesn't fire the rocket vertically in a trajectory. It tends to be a close ranged attack that would happen in a few minutes. Random Article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_System#Shorter-range_anti-ballistic_missiles).

What the system would stop would be say North Korea or Iran from secretly launching a strike. While improbable it's better to be prepared.

[Vash02]

Except the Russian Boomer aren't worth a shit, the only Navy with a viable ICBM threat from the sea is the USA. The MDS is only a last ditch affair to stop a few missiles, launched by a small state like Iran, rather then defend against an all out nuclear exchange, and it wouldn't stop EASTWARD missiles flying from Siberia towards the USA. So the Russians are being rather dishonest about their "concerns" to begin with.

What is it with americans and ignorance of other nations military capabilities?

The UK and French nuclear deterrents are entirely sub based.

[Firefly]

What is it with certain Americans and ignorance of other nations military capabilities?
Fixed. Please do not paint us all with the same brush.

[NewSith]

Fixed. Please do not paint us all with the same brush.

I honestly read it as bush.

[Firefly]

That, too.

[sylphaen]

Why would you need to shoot a nuke at the USA if you wanted to hurt them ?

Even if the US had a missile defense system, one could:
- fire at a target close enough and have radioactivity do the rest. Not very reliable.
Or
- fire enough missiles at any other WMD-capable state willing to retaliate in order to trigger any kind of nuclear response. The exchange would fuck up everyone including the USA.
Or
- knowing that your state/nation would soon be disintegrated by any response from any other country if you launched a nuke, you may as well go ballistic and blow up the planet first to make them all pay.


It's the same planet and there are no customs when it comes to destruction... and anyways: once we are done destroying our wealth of biodiversity through overpopulation and abuse of resources, we may have no other choice but to destroy ourselves.

When we attack life itself by purging entire species from this planet, do not expect to find any saviour out there to protect us from ourselves.

[Traak]

To say that any country, including the USA is immune to something like a nuke attack is laughable. The only reason it hasn't happened yet is that the opportunity and means haven't met the motivation. But there are vast hordes of people on the planet who have either opportunity and/or means, like Russia with its vast nuclear arsenal, or movitation, which is many people in many places, but, so far, the opportunity and means have not met with the motivation, or else somewhere in the USA would be a smoking hole by now.

I agree that missile defense is a good thing. It is just hard to block every possible route of entrance of a WMD. However, just because it is difficult to do, doesn't mean we can't do everything we can.

[Baneblade]

Any MDS at this point is a just a colossal waste of money.

[sylphaen]

I agree that missile defense is a good thing. It is just hard to block every possible route of entrance of a WMD. However, just because it is difficult to do, doesn't mean we can't do everything we can.

Even if an MDS could protect the physical integrity of land in the USA, it cannot protect the whole planet. Good luck stopping clouds of radioactive dust and particles on a large scale.

Nuclear weapons are the great equalizer:
If you start playing with them, everybody dies. No one can hide behind his desk while sending others on the front lines without risking death too.

Great defense weapon too:
Invade my country and we will wipe out something of yours (or ours, it doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things). Wipe us out and we will make sure you are left with a f***ing wasted junk planet.

[Traak]

So, in short, having nukes has actually prevented global war from happening. At the rate World Wars were happening before, one every 35 years or so, we would have had two more of them by now without nukes.

However, some people would suffer far, far less from nuclear war than others. And some people don't seem to care who suffers, as long as their enemies DIE.

[Plainside]

Still an issue of securing the people, the sovereignty and the nation... everyone wants to feel safe and secured at all times.

[Vash02]

So, in short, having nukes has actually prevented global war from happening. At the rate World Wars were happening before, one every 35 years or so, we would have had two more of them by now without nukes.

However, some people would suffer far, far less from nuclear war than others. And some people don't seem to care who suffers, as long as their enemies DIE.

nah, the thing is with war is that its horrible and I believe that the more communications technology has improved the more people see the effects of war. The more people see of war and the more they grow familiar with the countries around them, the more they are likely to say no to war.

People recoil in horror at pictures of the holocaust but dont blink when they read of ghengis khan's rape and massacres of entire city's with nothing but the weapons in his soldiers hands.

[Traak]

People seem to be more insulated from events if they happened further in the past.

"That couldn't be happening today. We're modern!"

-Possibly said during WWII Germany about the holocaust, by a German.

[Plainside]

...all because of securing peace within nations territories.

[xSlideShow]

Let's turn the tables - US places the thing. US launches missiles at Russia; Russia launches missiles at US. US can spot missile in 2 stages of launch. RU can only spot on a single stage of launch.

Have you though what would US say if Russian MDS was deployed in North America?

Yes

Why do you need missile defense sites in the US? It's not like we're going to attack you. Who besides the US and Canada present any threat to Russia's interest?

US wins that debate sir.

Although something I just thought about, why don't we use the UN? Have the missile defense sites set up to protect all of Europe including Russia. Have this run by the UN everybody wins!

[NewSith]

Step 2. Accuse the country in violation of democratic rights.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16037975

Step 3. Accuse the country in dictatorship.

Step 4. Send troops to "help people restore democracy"

Step 5. Profit.


Though it's mostly exaggeration and sarcasm in my post, the course of US actions towards Russia IS starting to look very familiar.
It may indeed turn out that I'll be waving a hand to some of you from other side of the battlefield one day...

[Baneblade]

Protecting oneself against a threat that doesn't in actuality exist, is a recipe for disaster.