Russia threatens Poland; Norway says also cuts ties to NATO

[Medic]

I suggest that people re-read some of the posts which Stuart made here earlier. The system is capable of acting against Russia, which is only a matter of priority.

All the talk about "defending our national interests" is fine, but someone should figure out that the US ABM is not in Russia's interests.

No argument here, I've at least never said Russia shouldn't bat an eye; it's just a matter of volume. 10 interceptors complicates a nuclear strike in the 1st, what, 50 missiles? Then it's business-as-usual, you send a missile at the target, you know it's history.

And please shut up about the Russian ABM from the 1970s. It broke the ABM treaty in no ways, and not only that, but it never included space & sea based elements, which the US system does, and which were explicitly prohibited. Let's be fucking honest - Russia is back behind the US in the whole ABM deal, while the US is constructing a world-encompassing system against any adversary.

As is so often pointed out in these threads, the ballistic missile club is a vanishingly exclusive one in the 21st century. 20 years on from the Cold War has simply seen high-technology flatten across the world; entry costs for nukes / missiles / satellites / advanced electronics have dropped where once having these at all or in appreciable volume was the sole privilege of the US and USSR.

Inasmuch as we are pursuing a world-encompassing system -- tough shit. Our carriers sail the 7 seas unassailable, we have bases or can arm-wring for airbases to operate fighters and bombers in nearly any conceivable hot spot in the world, we have major allies which can station major military forts worldwide.

Fielding ABM technologies in the breadth and depth that we are is merely a factor of a few things:

1) the aforementioned ever-less-predictable and growing threat 2) the realization that a layered defense is simply better than a one-trick midcourse defense 3) utilizing pre-existing Cold War infrastructure (Upgraded Early Warning Radar, Cobra Dane), developing new infrastructure through diplomacy (the Polish missile site and Czech radar site); leveraging our industrial and financial clout which simply bypasses both of those entirely (the sea-based X-Band radar) -- 4) and finally, taking advantage of the forward-deployed posture of our armed forces. We HAVE Aegis destroyers and cruisers everywhere, why NOT implement ABM systems in these, if possible? (SM-3 a terminal intercept capability) We HAVE Brigade Combat Teams and greater forward deployed in the Middle East, Korea, and Europe, why NOT field ABM assets to our air defense artillery units? (THAAD / PAC-3) We can bomb anywhere not just from CONUS with the Grey Lady, but also with swarms of tactical fighter-bombers, why NOT implement a cheap, off-the-shelf, boost-phase intercept missile that can be thrown on any mach-dash capable fighter? (NCADE) F-16's and F-15's needn't ever again watch in vain as a scud-type missile they're painting with their radar climbs contemptuously away.

In short, we're a superpower still and you're not and since we've decided to pursue ABM in earnest, it's sort of silly (:?) to complain about the number, type, and geographical placement of ABM-related systems. They'll go where we already are, and that's everywhere.

[Icehawk]

Which threats, saying that we will target ABM installations as prime strategic objects? We have said such for a long time and it makes perfect sense in case of war. Disagree?

Why should we NOT put every possible stick into the wheel of the US missile shield? This gives us more time to develop our counters, while the US lags here or there trying to make other countries accept it's proposals.

Go ahead retarget your missiles, pursue your own counters, I don't give a shit about that, what concerns me is the going "BEYOND DIPLOMATIC PROTEST" aka, very possibly starting a war which would threaten global and humanity's security beyond anything the US has done and any islamic shithole ever currently could do is not the wisest way to go about things in the name of "protecting your interests". But then again, you are a nation seemingly very nearly run by maffia thugs so I suppose its not that suprising.

But don't chastise or accuse us for pursuing our interests. We have every right to make EVERY attempt to slow down the US ABM system. Just as the US uses the carrot-and-stick or scaremongering to make other nations accept it's military plans.

What right do you have to use the excuse of "pursuing and protecting our interests" when your "interests" are those of a nation and government currently under the thumbs of or deep cooperation with gangsters? Why the hell would YOU WANT to be arguing in favor of protecting your current moronic leaders "interests" if you appear to be the progressive intellect you make yourself out to be?

Despite having bullfuck leaders like Bush, atleast the west has the ability to and the mass will and desire to get rid of its idiots, can you say the same about your nation and its people?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Go ahead retarget your missiles, pursue your own counters, I don't give a shit about that, what concerns me is the going "BEYOND DIPLOMATIC PROTEST" aka, very possibly starting a war which would threaten global and humanity's security beyond anything the US has done and any islamic shithole ever currently could do is not the wisest way to go about things in the name of "protecting your interests". But then again, you are a nation seemingly very nearly run by maffia thugs so I suppose its not that suprising.

No one said about starting a war. In fact, no one has threatened to. Russia merely said that Poland will now be saturated by nukes in the event of a war.

What right do you have to use the excuse of "pursuing and protecting our interests" when your "interests" are those of a nation and government currently under the thumbs of or deep cooperation with gangsters? Why the hell would YOU WANT to be arguing in favor of protecting your current moronic leaders "interests" if you appear to be the progressive intellect you make yourself out to be?

I'm sorry, but the West has its own problems with corporations which happen to have politicians in their pocket. When that happens, and they donate in exchange for freebies, you can hardly say that the politicians are also capable of making unbiased decisions right? Or has Big Oil not screw you guys over enough?

Despite having bullfuck leaders like Bush, atleast the west has the ability to and the mass will and desire to get rid of its idiots, can you say the same about your nation and its people?

Read: Will. Bush wasn't the first moronic president elected into position, nor will he be the last. And the fucker was elected twice. The mass will does not exist, and McCain despite being Bush-lite still has a sizable following that may allow him to get elected.

[K. A. Pital]

Indeed, where'd anyone get the idea that we would start an actual war over it. Except maybe from a Media Spin Machine, but i doubt even that can be.

"Beyond protest" means we will actually re-target MRBMs, a measure we long said is to be implemented in case ABM system elements are put in Europe.

So the actions of my government are totally justified, and more than that, they are not anywhere close to "provoking war" or any of the other fantastic statements of yours.

Is the ABM system your people's interest, actually, or your leader's interest?

[Mr. Coffee]

Is the ABM system your people's interest, actually, or your leader's interest?

Generally, a system the could blunt or even stop a potential threat from harming you or your allies is in your interests.

Just saying.

[K. A. Pital]

Right. Maintaining a strategic deterrent for a nation of residence and it's allies is also in your, or, in that case, my interests.

[CJvR]

pogroming their Jews

I rather think they are annoyed that they didn't pogrome enough.

[Mr. Coffee]

Right. Maintaining a strategic deterrent for a nation of residence and it's allies is also in your, or, in that case, my interests.

And no one's stopping you from maintaining a strategic deterrent, Stas. I mean, fuck, your country has deployed what... Two new types of nuclear missiles and a new class of SSBN recently and you guys are bitching because someone decided that investing in ABM might be a good idea? I'm calling shenanigans.

[CJvR]

Despite all the political posturing and media hysteria there is no way Moscow will want to go back to a contest which they lost the first round of despite having all of Eastern Europe, the Baltic and Ukraine shackled to their cause.

A second cold war?
Cruise missiles, ABM and Pershings in the Baltic states? The frontline not in Berlin but in the suburbs of St Petersburg... If the Russians didn't win the first round how could they even contemplate a second with an infinately worse strategic situation and the growing power of China in the east - Beijing might want Taiwan but I think they would prefer Siberia to feed it's growing aptite for resources.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

a second cold war?
Cruise missiles, ABM and Pershings in the Baltic states? The frontline not in Berlin but in the suburbs of St Petersburg... If the Russians didn't win the first round how could they even contemplate a second with an infinately worse strategic situation and the growing power of China in the east - Beijing might want Taiwan but I think they would prefer Siberia to feed it's growing aptite for resources.

Erm, it's not like the Russians trust the Chinese a lot, which is why most new fleet elements are going eastwards.

[K. A. Pital]

We don't like getting into straining military-industrial contests, but for the most part, we are forced into it.

The monopoly on nuclear weapons forced to waste billions on a nuclear deterrent.

The monopoly of US on nuclear deterrent, if it once again rises, will force Russia, whether it wants or not, to devise weapons to counter it.

I doubt an arms race is already a "Cold war", but given the attention we pay to hypersonic missiles, and especially hypersonic cruise missiles, I'd say the arms race is already underway.

[Pelranius]

a second cold war?
Cruise missiles, ABM and Pershings in the Baltic states? The frontline not in Berlin but in the suburbs of St Petersburg... If the Russians didn't win the first round how could they even contemplate a second with an infinately worse strategic situation and the growing power of China in the east - Beijing might want Taiwan but I think they would prefer Siberia to feed it's growing aptite for resources.

Erm, it's not like the Russians trust the Chinese a lot, which is why most new fleet elements are going eastwards.

I believe that most of the Russian naval build up is stationed around the Arctic Ocean. The infrastructure at Vladistok has sort of fallen into disrepair and besides, there's no realistic way the PLAN could even nose around that area in the next twenty years or so.

[K. A. Pital]

The PLAN will be crushed in an all-out confrontation. Besides, we know everything about PLAN hardware since it's our own hardware.

China won't risk a conflict with a nation that can reduce it to cinders with missile arsenals, anyway, not in the nearest future. Besides, it doesn't have many excuses to get into such a conflict, and to get to Siberia China would have to, um, override Mongolia and all Central Asia. The Far East - Vladivostok, etc. is more probable.

The US? I imagine embroiling into some proxy war in the f.USSR is well within the realms of the Bush-McCain line of foreign policy.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

I believe that most of the Russian naval build up is stationed around the Arctic Ocean. The infrastructure at Vladistok has sort of fallen into disrepair and besides, there's no realistic way the PLAN could even nose around that area in the next twenty years or so.

Well, Vladivostok is still a site of ship construction last I checked, with the Borey constructed there if I recall.

[Vympel]

Well, Vladivostok is still a site of ship construction last I checked, with the Borey constructed there if I recall.

No, all the Borey SSBNs are being built at Sevmash shipyard, Severodvinsk.

Pacific Fleet shipyard activity is centered at Amur shipyard in Komsomolsk-na-Amure rather than Vladivostok - near Vladivostok there are the Zvezda and Vostok shipyards - Zvezda shipyard dismantles old nuclear submarines (START-I declared for the purpose) together with refit and repair of existing ships, and Vostok was used to outfit nuclear submarines once they were completed at Komsomolsk-na-Amure. Of course, nuclear submarines are no longer being built at the Amur shipyard (there may be Akulas there incomplete from Soviet times, I know Nerpa is almost done and may go to India as has been much discussed) so Vostok has been repurposed, I believe.

Amur shipyard still builds other warships, though.

[Commander 598]

Doesn't this whole ABM thing mean dick all unless we start lobbing nukes? I'm pretty sure those aren't on the table as anything more than a big stick to wave at each other.

[CJvR]

Yes and no.

It will only ever fire if the missiles fly, but it's existence will influence the decissions made. There is a difference between "You will die!" and "You will probably die...".

[Kristoff]

They're in NATO as well as the EU, which shields them pretty well from Russian bullying already, so how exactly does making them a pawn in a USA-Russian shoving match benefit Poland?

Last time we relied on our allies ended up as being ass-raped by Germans and not long time later being gift-wrapped and handed out to Soviets...

[Medic]

Doesn't this whole ABM thing mean dick all unless we start lobbing nukes? I'm pretty sure those aren't on the table as anything more than a big stick to wave at each other.

First off the price of ABM efforts have to be balanced against the cost losing a city to a nuclear airburst. If even once this is meant then the systems about worth its weight in gold.

Second nukes aren't the only WMD that can be put on a missile nor are all missiles WMD armed nor are all ABM's tailored to just likely WMD carriers.

Lastly, again, ballistic missile technology is LONG out of Pandor's Box and powers much less reasonable than Russia and China have or covet missiles. To Iran and North Korea, ballistic missiles will be a first, not last, resort. Whether or not WMD's will also be a first resort for them is in just enough doubt that prudence is well warranted.

PS -- the developmental and fielding lead times for these weapons is quite long and we will never enjoy a viable defense by fielding it in RESPONSE to their emergence. Furthermore, the real painful expense is up-front, working out the kinks in every weapon, building and integrating all the sensors and command and control elements and tooling factories for mass production. We either establish an industrial base when threats are nascent or we dither until we're facing a clear and present danger we have no answer to, i.e., nuclear blackmail against us where our only real if inpalatable solution is de facto threats of nuclear retaliation. An absence of any ABM whatsoever increases the likelihood of things escalating out of control.

[Slacker]

Boofuckinghoo. If the Russians are seriously concerned that a SINGLE launcher with TEN missiles can seriously cut into their strategic deterrent, then the Russian nuclear stockpile has degenerated into a bigger pile of radioactive shit than we've all thought.

Honestly. Ten ABMs, assuming they all hit, are going to really cut into a nuclear armaggedon with a couple thousand warheads being lobbed around? Or even a couple of hundred?

I see people claiming that Russia 'has to' do these things to defend itself, 'has to' engage in an arms race with the United States. No, you don't. You lost the cold war. You could liberalize your busted oppressive country, and buddy up to NATO and the EU, because the big bad Chinese wolf is eyeing your shit. I'm sure the EU would orgasm over a liberalized Russian democracy wanting to join them, as it would give them the strategic ability to America to shove it if neccesary.

Western Democracy going Imperialist and imposing a 'New World Order' is the worst idea in the world-except letting the Russians or the Chinese call the shots instead. Someone is going to become top dog, it's human nature, and it's much better that it's 'us' (US/EU/Japan/India/etc) than the other alternatives.

[Bounty]

No English link yet, but it's been reported that Russia has in fact halted all cooperation with NATO.

[Bounty]

Ghetto edit:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7575332.stm

Russia has told Nato that it is halting military co-operation over the continuing crisis in Georgia, an alliance spokeswoman has said.

The Nato spokeswoman said it had been notified of the decision through military channels.

She said the alliance "takes note" of the decision but had no further reaction to it.

Nato and Russia began co-operating on various projects following an agreement in 2002.

Meanwhile, the separatist leaders of Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have urged Russia to recognise their independence at mass rallies.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow's response to their pleas would depend on the conduct of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.

Nato spokeswoman Carmen Romero said Russia's Defence Ministry had taken a decision "to halt international military co-operation events between Russia and Nato countries until further instructions".

'Withdraw troops'

The US described the development as "unfortunate", the news agency AFP reported.

Nato said on Tuesday that there would be no "business as usual" with Moscow unless Russian troops are pulled out of Georgia in line with a French-brokered ceasefire agreement.

Under the 2002 agreement that set up the Nato-Russia Council, the former Cold War foes began several co-operation projects.

These included sharing expertise to combat heroin trafficking from Afghanistan, developing battlefield anti-missile technology, joint military exercises and help with rescue at sea.

Carmen Romero said she was not aware of any Nato-Russia events scheduled before early September.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Boofuckinghoo. If the Russians are seriously concerned that a SINGLE launcher with TEN missiles can seriously cut into their strategic deterrent, then the Russian nuclear stockpile has degenerated into a bigger pile of radioactive shit than we've all thought.

Honestly. Ten ABMs, assuming they all hit, are going to really cut into a nuclear armaggedon with a couple thousand warheads being lobbed around? Or even a couple of hundred?

Because you ignorant twit the expensive item on the list isn't the missiles but the radar. The missiles can be easily increased from a mere 10 to a few hundred.

I see people claiming that Russia 'has to' do these things to defend itself, 'has to' engage in an arms race with the United States. No, you don't. You lost the cold war. You could liberalize your busted oppressive country, and buddy up to NATO and the EU, because the big bad Chinese wolf is eyeing your shit. I'm sure the EU would orgasm over a liberalized Russian democracy wanting to join them, as it would give them the strategic ability to America to shove it if neccesary.

Because you ignorant tard, Russia's application to join Nato got thrown out and no one in the EU would conceivably get too close to Russia. Nato remains, and has been since its formation, an anti-Russian bloc.

Western Democracy going Imperialist and imposing a 'New World Order' is the worst idea in the world-except letting the Russians or the Chinese call the shots instead. Someone is going to become top dog, it's human nature, and it's much better that it's 'us' (US/EU/Japan/India/etc) than the other alternatives.

You will have to do better to convince me when the US continues to prop the occasional dictator, and that Iraqi invasion still remains illegal.

[Guardsman Bass]

I see people claiming that Russia 'has to' do these things to defend itself, 'has to' engage in an arms race with the United States. No, you don't.

This part is right, Stas. You don't actually need the ability to annihilate pretty much any other country on the map - you could probably get by with being able to annihilate either Europe or China, and still be a pretty formidable regional power if not a global one. Then, of course, there's the oil and gas factor, which will ensure that at least Europe won't ignore you until, well, the oil and natural gas burns itself out (I don't know when that will be).

You lost the cold war. You could liberalize your busted oppressive country, and buddy up to NATO and the EU, because the big bad Chinese wolf is eyeing your shit. I'm sure the EU would orgasm over a liberalized Russian democracy wanting to join them, as it would give them the strategic ability to America to shove it if neccesary.

Perhaps, but I doubt. They certainly didn't rush to embrace Russian democracy (or at least the US didn't) in the 1990s - instead the US decided it wanted to continue playing Cold War, "Contain the Bear" rules.

Western Democracy going Imperialist and imposing a 'New World Order' is the worst idea in the world-except letting the Russians or the Chinese call the shots instead. Someone is going to become top dog, it's human nature, and it's much better that it's 'us' (US/EU/Japan/India/etc) than the other alternatives.

Perhaps, but keep in mind that China has been more content, to this point, to be a regional military power and global economic power (although they are building up). I'd be more worried if they were trying to build serious worldwide force projection (like if they started building a bunch of aircraft carriers).

[Guardsman Bass]

Because you ignorant tard, Russia's application to join Nato got thrown out and no one in the EU would conceivably get too close to Russia. Nato remains, and has been since its formation, an anti-Russian bloc.

This is why the US really should have tried to push some structural changes through in NATO after 1991.