/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Russia to aim Missiles at Europe



Sami Zaatari
06-04-2007, 12:52 AM
Putin warns he will point missiles at Europe
Sun Jun 3, 2007 5:17PM EDT
By Oleg Shchedrov

MOSCOW (Reuters) - President Vladimir Putin said Russia would go back to its Cold War stance of aiming its missiles at Europe if Washington went ahead with a plan to build a missile defence shield near Russia's borders.

In an interview released late on Sunday, Putin acknowledged that Russia's response risked reviving an arms race in Europe but said Moscow would not be responsible for the consequences because Washington had started the escalation.

Putin made the tough statement before what is likely to be a frosty Group of Eight summit in Germany on June 6 where, among other world leaders, he will come face to face with U.S. President George W. Bush.

Russia has not specifically targeted its missiles at Europe since the end of the Cold War but, asked if it might return to that if the U.S. missile shield plan went ahead, Putin said: "Of course we are returning to those times.

"It is clear that if a part of the U.S. nuclear capability turns up in Europe, and, in the opinion of our military specialists, will threaten us, then we are forced to take corresponding steps in response."

"What will those steps be? Naturally, we will have to have new targets in Europe."

Russia's combative response to the U.S. missile shield has prompted comparisons with the Cold War. Putin has directed angry rhetoric at the White House, last week calling U.S. policy "imperialist".

Russia has test-launched a new ballistic missile in a move it tied to the U.S. missile plans, and suspended its compliance with a treaty limiting the deployment of conventional forces near Russia's western borders.

POLITICAL GESTURE

Putin's warning that missiles might once again be pointed at European targets carries a clear political message but has few practical implications.

Even after the Cold War ended, Russia retained the capability to hit European and U.S. targets. Training ballistic missiles on a particular target is a fairly simple technical task that can be done in a matter of minutes.

Putin's comments came in an interview Putin gave to selected media from G8 countries on Friday. The Kremlin released a transcript of the interview on its Internet site www.kremlin.ru at 2100 GMT on Sunday.

Russia's response to the U.S. missile moves would be to develop "more effective offensive systems", Putin said in the interview.

"We know that that risks restarting an arms race, for which we will not be responsible. It was not us who started altering the strategic balance."

Putin added: "Today we warn: if a new missile defence system is deployed in Europe there will be a response," he added. "We are forced to ensure our security."

Washington wants to locate elements of its planned shield -- including a radar station and interceptor missiles -- in Poland and the Czech Republic.

It says the shield is not a threat to Russia but is designed to protect against possible missile attacks from what it calls "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea.

Putin said that was not credible. "There are no Iranian missiles with the necessary range," he said. "So it becomes obvious that this innovation is about us Russians."

Putin reiterated that a military escalation was not Russia's choice. "We are not in favor of confrontation," he said. "We are in favor of a dialogue.

"We want to be heard, we want our position to be understood," he said. "We do not rule out that our U.S. partners could review their decision (to build the missile shield)."

"But if that does not happen, we lift from ourselves any responsibility for the steps we take in response because we are not the ones who are initiating the looming arms race in Europe."

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?...68100920070603

perhaps now more people will start giving attention to the US-RUSSIA problems. :)
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
England
06-04-2007, 10:20 AM
Nuclear Stakes Rise Ahead Of G8

Updated: 10:05, Monday June 04, 2007
President Vladimir Putin has warned that Russia will aim missiles at Europe if the US goes ahead with its planned defence system.



He has threatened to return his country to its Cold War stance and has talked about the possibility - accidental or deliberate - of a nuclear war.

His comments come just before this week's G8 meeting of world leaders in Germany.

The US wants to place interceptor rockets on standby in Poland and set up a radar base in the Czech Republic.

"If a new missile defence system will be deployed in Europe, then we need to warn you today that we will come with a response," Mr Putin told The Times.

"We have to ensure our security and we are not the initiator of this process."

Mr Putin warned that the US deployment raised the propsect of accidental, or deliberate, nuclear war in Europe.

"We understand that the system of missile defence on the one side, and the absence of such a system on the other creates the illusion of being protected, and increases the possibility of unleashing a nuclear conflict," the Russian leader said.



Washington says it needs a missile shield to protect against an attack from the likes of North Korea and Iran.

But Mr Putin said Iran, which is striving to achieve nuclear status, did not have weapons that could threaten the US.

"There are no such missiles - Iran does not have missiles with the range," the President said.

Iran's top security official Ali Larijani said Washington's plans are "the joke of the year," adding: "The range of Iran's missiles doesn't reach Europe at all."

Mr Putin and US President George Bush will come face to face at the G8 summit in Germany this week in what is likely to be a frosty encounter.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/...268857,00.html
Reply

Muezzin
06-04-2007, 10:27 AM
Threads merged. Please have a quick gander down the list to see if the same topic already exists before creating a new one. :)
Reply

England
06-04-2007, 10:33 AM
Oh ok now I understand the "post moved" :) I did look down but I didn't see it...
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
NobleMuslimUK
06-04-2007, 10:44 AM
We dont need new nukes in UK and no American weapons system, and down with Russia. I can see why the ex-soviet nation is feeling intimidated. Carnt they're nukes hit America instead why Europe, thats cowardly.
Reply

Muezzin
06-04-2007, 10:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by NobleMuslimUK
We dont need new nukes in UK and no American weapons system, and down with Russia. I can see why the ex-soviet nation is feeling intimidated. Carnt they're nukes hit America instead why Europe, thats cowardly.
Can we refrain from saying that we would like to see certain countries nuked in this section please? There are notices in this section about the prohibition on calls to violence etc you see.
Reply

vpb
06-04-2007, 10:54 AM
the thing with Putin is that he has a proper face for playing Mafia's role on movies :p
Reply

NobleMuslimUK
06-04-2007, 10:56 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Can we refrain from saying that we would like to see certain countries nuked in this section please? There are notices in this section about the prohibition on calls to violence etc you see.
OK my bad Bro, but we know the hostilities that remain between America and Russia to this day :rollseyes
Their whole threat towards Europe is to hurt America.
Reply

England
06-04-2007, 11:21 AM
We need nukes in the UK for cases like this. If Russia sets in nukes on us then we are able to retaliate and set our nuclear missiles on them. Their problem is with the US so um... why threaten Europe? :rollseyes
He'll pay for it if he does go ahead with his threats. Russia v Europe/US? Dream on...
Reply

vpb
06-04-2007, 11:38 AM
He'll pay for it if he does go ahead with his threats. Russia v Europe/US? Dream on...
or maybe
North Korea/China/Russia........... v Europe/US ??
Reply

MTAFFI
06-04-2007, 01:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by vpb
or maybe
North Korea/China/Russia........... v Europe/US ??
dont forget Iran

But why would China want to get involved?

Lets just hope that it doesnt come to that though, if it does I dont think that this will be a great world for our childrens children to grow up in:(
Reply

Malaikah
06-04-2007, 01:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
if it does I dont think that this will be a great world for our childrens children to grow up in:(
It already isn't.
Reply

Woodrow
06-04-2007, 01:31 PM
I tend to doubt that either the US or Russia have ever stopped pointing Nukes at each other.

After Nearly 50 years of both holding the threat of immediate world annihilation over each other, it does not seem likely either ever fully gave into fully trusting the other. To me this more like something that has been there and the rest of the world has finaly realised it so it came out of the closet.

All during the cold war it was fairly well known that any confrontation between the USA and Russia would most likely take place in either Europe or the Mideast and both countries rather than risk destroying both countries.

the conversions will probably sound like this:

USA "You mess with us we will nuke Iran"

Russia "Just try it and we will nuke the UK and France"

US "You do that and we will also nuke Pakistan, India and Lebanon"

Russia "Oh Yea, and then we will wipe out Germany, Switzerland and Italy"

China (thinking to themselves) "With a little patience, we just need to wait and the World is ours."
Reply

MTAFFI
06-04-2007, 01:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Malaikah
It already isn't.
I have to agree, what a shame
Reply

noodles
06-04-2007, 02:19 PM
China (thinking to themselves) "With a little patience, we just need to wait and the World is ours."
Oh that gave me a fit for a whole minute :)

(IMO) Sad to say that the whole end of world prophecies doesn't revolve around US :p
Allahu' Alim :)

But it's just food for thought :)
Perhaps something big will happen between Russia and US of A and since Dajjal will come from east... we can assume from (any asian country) ... Bah just me and my theories.... (though that is not to say I store hatred in my heart against Russians or Americans or Chinese or any other nation for that matter)
Reply

DaNgErOuS MiNdS
06-04-2007, 02:32 PM
It seems like childish arguments at an international level, with presidents saying 'but he did it first'.
Reply

Keltoi
06-04-2007, 02:51 PM
It's amazing how fast the U.S/Russian relationship has declined in the past 4 years. Woodrow was right that the two countries have never "unaimed" their missiles at each other, and I don't think we will be seeing any mutual disarmament treaties in the near future. I heard a report that the U.S. and China have now installed an emergency phone line in the case of any misunderstandings. Hopefully the U.S. and Russia still have that "red line" too.
Reply

MTAFFI
06-04-2007, 03:21 PM
I think alot of the problem has to do with the leaders of both countries. You have Bush, who I wont even bother commenting on since it is done ever so frequently in this section, and then there is Putin, who in my opinion is just as bad if not worse. Putin was also very loyal to the soviet military back in his younger days and to be honest, I would imagine he still holds a grudge against the US. The mixture of these personalities and policies is a recipe for disaster, not just for these two countries but for the entire world.
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
06-04-2007, 03:29 PM
If some one says "Im the King" immediately the other opposes him and says "No Im the King"...... and will continue....................................
Reply

Muezzin
06-04-2007, 03:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by MTAFFI
I think alot of the problem has to do with the leaders of both countries. You have Bush, who I wont even bother commenting on since it is done ever so frequently in this section, and then there is Putin, who in my opinion is just as bad if not worse. Putin was also very loyal to the soviet military back in his younger days and to be honest, I would imagine he still holds a grudge against the US. The mixture of these personalities and policies is a recipe for disaster, not just for these two countries but for the entire world.
Took the words right out of my mouth. Danged nukes with crazy people holding the triggers...

format_quote Originally Posted by Muzammil
If some one says "Im the King" immediately the other opposes him and says "No Im the King"...... and will continue....................................
There is only one king.
Reply

Abdul-Raouf
06-04-2007, 03:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Yes absolutely correct....

These people forget HIM and call themselves super powers/ They think they are the Kings to rule the world.... Fools

They r not super powers... they r stupid powers
Reply

Amadeus85
06-04-2007, 04:14 PM
The truth is that Russia nowadays is as weak as never before in the last century.
This country is in enormous crisis. Their army is old , and remembers Cold War times. Their economy is in bad condition, only oil and gas export gives them much profits. Human rights and freedom of press is no better than in Middle East.Putin is no more than an autocrathic empreror, populistic leader from the past century, like Lukashenko. Evryone in world is loughing when they hear about russian democracy. Average russian man lives about 60 years, one of the most common reason of deaths is alcoholism. Aids is spreading very fast in society.Ksenophobia and racism are on rise.The population, which is now about 140 millions will decline to about 80 millions in the half of this century.
Putin knows this and thats why he is making such scary speeches about those missiles. But in reality no one is afraid of Russia now. Just look what happenned in Chechenia when such huge army couldnt defeat group of highlanders.
Reply

Keltoi
06-04-2007, 04:50 PM
I read an article in Foreign Affairs magazine in which it cited a survey taken of Russian youth, I believe it was something like 43% have a good view of Stalin.
Reply

DaNgErOuS MiNdS
06-04-2007, 04:52 PM
I don't know much about the situation but would the USA help the chechans to beat/weaken russia? a bit like in Afghanistan or is that not possible?
Reply

جوري
06-04-2007, 04:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
I tend to doubt that either the US or Russia have ever stopped pointing Nukes at each other.

After Nearly 50 years of both holding the threat of immediate world annihilation over each other, it does not seem likely either ever fully gave into fully trusting the other. To me this more like something that has been there and the rest of the world has finaly realised it so it came out of the closet.

All during the cold war it was fairly well known that any confrontation between the USA and Russia would most likely take place in either Europe or the Mideast and both countries rather than risk destroying both countries.

the conversions will probably sound like this:

USA "You mess with us we will nuke Iran"

Russia "Just try it and we will nuke the UK and France"

US "You do that and we will also nuke Pakistan, India and Lebanon"

Russia "Oh Yea, and then we will wipe out Germany, Switzerland and Italy"

China (thinking to themselves) "With a little patience, we just need to wait and the World is ours."
I dislike a uni-bipolar world.. nice to see Russia back on the scene.. it will be WWIII in no time... think the world has been working itself up to this for quite sometime... men love their wars like little boys love their toy soldiers.
Reply

NobleMuslimUK
06-04-2007, 04:57 PM
Yes its not just Russia that hates the USA most of the world does. I think before these nations perish they would rather take their enemy down with them.
I also heard Russia threaten Israel constantly, dont know how true this is...
Reply

islamirama
06-04-2007, 05:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by vpb
or maybe
North Korea/China/Russia........... v Europe/US ??
North Korea/china/Russia/Iran/Venezula......vs.....Europe/US

lot of ppl out there are waiting in line for an opportunity like this where they can take opposite side of the US. I can see WWIII coming down the road soon.


format_quote Originally Posted by England
We need nukes in the UK for cases like this. If Russia sets in nukes on us then we are able to retaliate and set our nuclear missiles on them. Their problem is with the US so um... why threaten Europe? :rollseyes
He'll pay for it if he does go ahead with his threats. Russia v Europe/US? Dream on...
Russia has every right to defend it's land. How is it that US can go over seas and bomb nations for it's "national security" and Iran can't do anything in Iraq to defend it's national security and Russia can't do anything in Europe.

Simple answer is, UK and Europe needs to tell US to go home and then they won't have Russia knocking on their doors.
Reply

Woodrow
06-04-2007, 05:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
I dislike a uni-bipolar world.. nice to see Russia back on the scene.. it will be WWIII in no time... think the world has been working itself up to this for quite sometime... men love their wars like little boys love their toy soldiers.
As sad and sarcastic that sounds. I believe you perceive the problem as it really is.

The fall of the Communism did not defuse the probability of WW3 it only delayed the starting date.

The question will be "where will the major battle field be?"
Reply

NobleMuslimUK
06-04-2007, 05:14 PM
Battlefield might be europe like it has been in the past couple of world wars or maybe the middle east this time round.
Reply

noodles
06-04-2007, 05:15 PM
Canada seems like a nice place to settle this :p With all the nice little lakes and islands, the hilly areas. It'd be perfect. Plus, it'd be even more multicultural than it already it, so that's a great benefit.
Reply

islamirama
06-04-2007, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by noodles
Canada seems like a nice place to settle this :p With all the nice little lakes and islands, the hilly areas. It'd be perfect. Plus, it'd be even more multicultural than it already it, so that's a great benefit.
yea but the taxes are outrages and opportunities very low like the temperatures :D
Reply

islamirama
06-04-2007, 05:25 PM
Nato condemns Putin missile vow




Russia's threat to aim weapons at Europe if the US sets up a missile defence shield there was "unhelpful and unwelcome", Nato has said.


The US says it wants missile defence in eastern Europe to counter threats from states like Iran and North Korea.


On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Iran was not a threat to the US, hinting that Russia was the target.


French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said he will have "frank" talks with Mr Putin this week about the threat.

'Stormy summit'


Washington wants to deploy interceptor rockets in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic to counter what it describes as a potential threat from "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea.


It insists the shield is not aimed at Russia.


"As far as I am aware, the only country speculating about targeting Europe with missiles is the Russian Federation," Nato spokesman James Appathurai said.
"These kind of comments are unhelpful and unwelcome."




See map of US missile defence bases


The new French president will hold his first talks with Mr Putin at this week's G8 summit in the German resort of Heiligendamm.


"I will listen attentively to him. He called for a frank dialogue. From my side, it will be frank," Mr Sarkozy said.


US President George W Bush is also due to meet Mr Putin at the three-day summit, which starts on Wednesday.


The BBC's Rupert Wingfield-Hayes in Moscow says that if Mr Putin's words are anything to go by, the summit is likely to be stormy.


'Joke of the year'


Mr Putin issued his warning in an interview with foreign reporters ahead of the G8 meeting.
"If the American nuclear potential grows in European territory, we will have to have new targets in Europe," Mr Putin said.


He said neither Iran nor North Korea had the weapons that the US was seeking to shoot down.


"We are being told the anti-missile defence system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you?" he asked.


Top Iranian security official Ali Larijani described the planned deployment as the "joke of the year", adding that Iran's missiles were not capable of reaching Europe.
Mr Putin said Washington had "altered the strategic balance" by unilaterally pulling out of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty in 2002.


He hoped US officials would change their minds about the missile plan, and said that if an arms race resulted it would not be Russia's fault.


Last week, Moscow announced it had tested a ballistic missile to maintain "strategic balance" in the world.















Reply

جوري
06-04-2007, 05:34 PM
You can't just go pointing your weapon at someone, there is strategy to this.. like that of khalid ibn ilwaleed... it isn't about number of men or weaponry, or casualty even... very few men had the ability to win a war..
To win a war means things are being met not just loss of lives.... which is what all the wars now a days seem to be about, they are mindless, with no diplomacy, ethics or mitigation or thought, almost like Viking' sporting event.
I really don't believe many men possess that ability anymore...
What did khalid ibn ilwaleed do when Arabia was threatened? people couldn't handle the situation, they were outnumbered 1000 to 1... he rearranged the five parties of troops that were with him at each end during the night time, asked people to tie torches into the camel hooves and set them running to create the illusion, that more forces were coming, obviously when the enemy group on the east finds themselves fighting with a different set of men, than those from the night previous, they feel like perhaps they are being outnumbered, not because there were new troops but because he asked sides to switch, and all the torrent sand in the air from the camels' running the night previous, the enemy felt they were outnumbered, they retreated.

There was an intelligent thought here, it wasn't about casualty, or winning, it was about fulfilling a purpose...
How many decent ethical thoughts or mitigation go into wars now a days? None, you just see people dropping like flies, like animals, like their lives meant nothing at all!
Reply

Keltoi
06-04-2007, 05:39 PM
Putin doesn't like the idea of a U.S. missile shield period, regardless of its location. These disagreements have occurred many times before, but this time Putin knows that Russia has a much smaller saber to rattle. If Europe wants a missile shield there is very little Putin can do or has the right to do. Threatening Europe only makes his position more ludicrous.
Reply

England
06-04-2007, 05:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
North Korea/china/Russia/Iran/Venezula......vs.....Europe/US

lot of ppl out there are waiting in line for an opportunity like this where they can take opposite side of the US. I can see WWIII coming down the road soon.




Russia has every right to defend it's land. How is it that US can go over seas and bomb nations for it's "national security" and Iran can't do anything in Iraq to defend it's national security and Russia can't do anything in Europe.

Simple answer is, UK and Europe needs to tell US to go home and then they won't have Russia knocking on their doors.
And Britain/US/Europe have the right to defend their lands too. Now those critics that have criticised Britain for upgrading its nukes can shut the hell up. If Russia set off any nuclear missiles don't for one minute think they won't feel the effects of ours. Russia is starting to remind me of Iran. If they have a problem with the US they should sort it out WITH the US. The UK/Europe should not tell the US to go home just because of these threats. We should not bow down to scum.
It's a shame really because I've met some decent Russian guys/girls and to think if Russia go ahead we'll end up becoming enemies :X

Nah I think Putin is talking out of his arse. They haven't got the guts, they know what will happen.
Reply

Trumble
06-04-2007, 05:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
Russia has every right to defend it's land.
I'm sure it does but who, exactly, do you believe to be threatening that land?

I find it rather ironic to discover that, situated where planned, the US missiles would be totally incapable of intercepting anything fired from Russia anyway. The whole thing is a nonsense, purely for internal Russian political consumption. So Putin says they will target missiles on Europe - so what, how long does that take, half-an-hour? Same to un-target them. Whoopy-doo.
Reply

islamirama
06-04-2007, 05:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by England
And Britain/US/Europe have the right to defend their lands too. Now those critics that have criticised Britain for upgrading its nukes can shut the hell up. If Russia set off any nuclear missiles don't for one minute think they won't feel the effects of ours. Russia is starting to remind me of Iran. If they have a problem with the US they should sort it out WITH the US. The UK/Europe should not tell the US to go home just because of these threats. We should not bow down to scum.
It's a shame really because I've met some decent Russian guys/girls and to think if Russia go ahead we'll end up becoming enemies :X

Nah I think Putin is talking out of his arse. They haven't got the guts, they know what will happen.
If UK/Europe wants to nuke up t hen they can do that all they want. But when they let US go there and set up bases, then Russia has every right to defend it's nation and take precaution measures. Why is it that US can do that and not other nations? How will US feel if Russia sets up bases in mexico or canada, you think US will let that happen?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
I'm sure it does but who, exactly, do you believe to be threatening that land?
US is threatening that land by inviting trouble. Russia is only Re-acting in self-defense.
Reply

noodles
06-04-2007, 05:51 PM
We'll just have to wait till wednesday for this G8 summit :)

Until then :p we can debate all we want
Reply

Zman
06-04-2007, 07:01 PM
:sl:

This could have been avoided completely, if the U.S. listened to Russia's concerns and many early warnings that was issued by its leadership.

This started with the U.S.'s insistence on creating a "defensive" missile shield in the heart of Europe.

The excuse was that Iranian missiles could target Europe. Iran would not alienate Europe by targeting it. It would be wiser to split Europe and the U.S.

Also, if Iran was the real U.S. concern, why not build this defensive missile shield in the Middle East, that way, any alleged Iranian missiles that are launched, can be dealt with before they reach European airspace?

The real objective of this missile shiled is Russia, and no one else. We are the ones who are yearning to re-start the Cold War, not Russia.

We had many opportunities to embrace and include Russia in the European/Western family, but, we've always dealt with them at arms length...
Reply

MTAFFI
06-04-2007, 08:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zman
:sl:

This could have been avoided completely, if the U.S. listened to Russia's concerns and many early warnings that was issued by its leadership.

Russia's concerns are ridiculous, not to mention the issue is regarding land that Russia does not have any right to dictate what goes on that land

format_quote Originally Posted by Zman
:
This started with the U.S.'s insistence on creating a "defensive" missile shield in the heart of Europe.
Actually the US "insisted" on nothing, it was an idea and was gladly welcomed by the countries that these defense systems will be found in, Russia on the other hand is the one who is "insisting"

format_quote Originally Posted by Zman
:
The excuse was that Iranian missiles could target Europe. Iran would not alienate Europe by targeting it. It would be wiser to split Europe and the U.S.
Perhaps not Europe, but then lets not forget about the british sailors. I think Iran has made it clear many times it is not exactly best friends with Europe. Also lets not forget North Korea

format_quote Originally Posted by Zman
:
Also, if Iran was the real U.S. concern, why not build this defensive missile shield in the Middle East, that way, any alleged Iranian missiles that are launched, can be dealt with before they reach European airspace?
I dont think it would be wise to put anything else, military or otherwise, in the mid-east do you? Also if these deterents are put in place they would supposedly stop an attack before it reached european airspace

format_quote Originally Posted by Zman
:
The real objective of this missile shiled is Russia, and no one else. We are the ones who are yearning to re-start the Cold War, not Russia.
If Russia wasnt intending on using missles against the europeans why would they care, it isnt offensive it is defensive. This security measure would not effect their security, it will only improve the european security, which is why the Russian argument is ineffective. Their threat to aim missles at the europeans is only more reason to implement such a system, and maybe implement and even more advanced one, since Russia is posing itself as a threat. Why would the US want or need to start a new cold war with russia? Or arms race for that matter, the US is already superior in every aspect of military might, we have no need to prove that. I think you should do some research on Putin and Russias history before you go blaming this one on the US.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zman
:
We had many opportunities to embrace and include Russia in the European/Western family, but, we've always dealt with them at arms length...
Or is it the other way around? I suggest you learn on this subject before you speak on it
Reply

MTAFFI
06-04-2007, 08:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
If UK/Europe wants to nuke up t hen they can do that all they want. But when they let US go there and set up bases, then Russia has every right to defend it's nation and take precaution measures. Why is it that US can do that and not other nations? How will US feel if Russia sets up bases in mexico or canada, you think US will let that happen?
Who says other nations cant? What nations have tried? Why would Canada or Mexico want a soviet base on their territory? The Europeans (Poland and Czech) have welcomed this security measure, why would the mexicans or canadians want the soviets on their territory, the US certainly is threatening either, and if a case came up I am sure the US would protect or align with them.

format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
US is threatening that land by inviting trouble. Russia is only Re-acting in self-defense.
Self defense to what? Self defense? That doesnt even make any sense... These are deterents, they ARE self defence, when Russia said they will point nuclear weapons, it went on the offense.
Reply

noodles
06-04-2007, 08:27 PM
If Russia wasnt intending on using missles against the europeans why would they care, it isnt offensive it is defensive. This security measure would not effect their security, it will only improve the european security, which is why the Russian argument is ineffective. Their threat to aim missles at the europeans is only more reason to implement such a system, and maybe implement and even more advanced one, since Russia is posing itself as a threat. Why would the US want or need to start a new cold war with russia? Or arms race for that matter, the US is already superior in every aspect of military might, we have no need to prove that. I think you should do some research on Putin and Russias history before you go blaming this one on the US.
I think the terms "offensive" and "defensive" shouldn't be used here. The strong alliance between UK and US (and other european countries) play a major role here. US claims it is to protect its European allies. Do tell me though, what exactly is stopping UK from launching nukes on Russia? After all US being is no.1 ally, it'd have all the backing it needs.

Once the first missile goes off towards Russia from Europe then do tell how would Russia survive against the "advanced" defensive mechanism?

(Perhaps I'm ranting here, but I'm just trying to consider the other side of the argument)
Reply

Fishman
06-04-2007, 08:30 PM
:sl:
Russia is the crumbling, despotic ruin of a once-mighty empire. I'm glad somebody had the courage to stand up against them. But when the safety of the world is at stake, I think both sides should show caution rather than deliberately provoking the other side.
:w:
Reply

MTAFFI
06-04-2007, 08:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by noodles
I think the terms "offensive" and "defensive" shouldn't be used here. The strong alliance between UK and US (and other european countries) play a major role here. US claims it is to protect its European allies. Do tell me though, what exactly is stopping UK from launching nukes on Russia? After all US being is no.1 ally, it'd have all the backing it needs.

Once the first missile goes off towards Russia from Europe then do tell how would Russia survive against the "advanced" defensive mechanism?

(Perhaps I'm ranting here, but I'm just trying to consider the other side of the argument)
Offensive and Defensive should most definitely be used in this discussion, since it is the basis of the issues that Russia and Europe and the US have here.

As for Russia being attacked by the Europeans, well first off Russia is now threatening the Europeans, while the Europeans have made no threats to Russia. Second the system that is purposed would not have the capability to stop a Russian missle, otherwise what would be the point of them threatening the europeans with their missles if they could just shoot them down? Russia is no doubt in the wrong here
Reply

Trumble
06-04-2007, 08:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Zman
:sl:

Also, if Iran was the real U.S. concern, why not build this defensive missile shield in the Middle East, that way, any alleged Iranian missiles that are launched, can be dealt with before they reach European airspace?

The real objective of this missile shiled is Russia, and no one else. We are the ones who are yearning to re-start the Cold War, not Russia.
Because sited in the Middle East such missiles would not be able to intercept Iranian ballistic missiles. It is too close. For the same reason, interceptor missiles fired from 'next door' to Russia COULD NOT intercept ballistic missiles fired from European Russia. It is physically impossible.

The flight path of an ICBM takes it up into space (between 100 and 300 miles or so, depending on the missile) and then down again. It is impossible for interceptor missiles fired from the Middle East to intercept ICBMs fired from Iran, by the time the launch is detected and interceptors fired they simply would not be able to catch them. The interceptor launch site needs to be a considerable distance away (thousands of miles) to enable a suitable intercept course to be calculated and flown.

However stupid it may or not be, the perceived threat IS from elsewhere than Russia. The bases are already there, both countries are in NATO. The interceptor missiles pose no threat to Russia whatsoever. Putin's action has nothing to do with military matters at all, it's all about internal politics. Neither side has any desire whatsoever to re-start the Cold War; they can't afford to for a start.
Reply

Muezzin
06-04-2007, 09:13 PM
I've just deleted a bunch of posts that had little to do with the topic, and everything to do with insulting other members. Do not do this, for it is bad and attracts infractions.
Reply

noodles
06-04-2007, 09:24 PM
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...486345,00.html

You people should read the interview. Says alot not included in the articles.

(2 pages)
Reply

England
06-04-2007, 09:52 PM
There isn't going to be a any nuclear strikes. Putin knows that himself. Russia doesn't have the power to back them up. They'll crumble and Putin KNOWS that.
Reply

جوري
06-04-2007, 09:55 PM
You looked into their secret weapon reserves or are you just really scared? Let's hope diplomacy works!..
Reply

Woodrow
06-04-2007, 10:17 PM
Back during the worse days of the cold war it was pretty much accepted that the USA would be targeting Russian cities and the Russians would be targeting USA cities, it was also accepted that the shortest route would be over the North pole. The old missile silos that the US had in our Northern States had any point in Russia within 15 minutes range. The number of nukes we had is unbelievable. If I recall correctly the released number we had aimed just at Moscow was in the thousands. I think we admitted to having over 20,000 armed missiles ready to fire at the push of a button. The actual number was probably much higher.

Russia was also equal capable of destroying the US No Hydrogen bombs had ever been detonated in war. It is unimaginable as to what an Eniwetok category nuke would do if used in ware fare. It is estimated that it would only take 6 to destroy every man made building in the US if they were spaced to detonated evenly across the continent. Russia has a larger surface are so it would take about 15 to have the same effect. But, with and estimates 20,000 aimed at each country it is inconceivable that either country would be able to wage war for over 15 minutes and both continents would be left as nuclear waste land for a thousand years or more.

It is sad to see that we are returning to that time.
Reply

Keltoi
06-04-2007, 10:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Back during the worse days of the cold war it was pretty much accepted that the USA would be targeting Russian cities and the Russians would be targeting USA cities, it was also accepted that the shortest route would be over the North pole. The old missile silos that the US had in our Northern States had any point in Russia within 15 minutes range. The number of nukes we had is unbelievable. If I recall correctly the released number we had aimed just at Moscow was in the thousands. I think we admitted to having over 20,000 armed missiles ready to fire at the push of a button. The actual number was probably much higher.

Russia was also equal capable of destroying the US No Hydrogen bombs had ever been detonated in war. It is unimaginable as to what an Eniwetok category nuke would do if used in ware fare. It is estimated that it would only take 6 to destroy every man made building in the US if they were spaced to detonated evenly across the continent. Russia has a larger surface are so it would take about 15 to have the same effect. But, with and estimates 20,000 aimed at each country it is inconceivable that either country would be able to wage war for over 15 minutes and both continents would be left as nuclear waste land for a thousand years or more.

It is sad to see that we are returning to that time.
The question would be whether the U.S. or Russia are stupid enough to commit to that kind of mutual destruction. We got through the Cold War without it happening, although we were close a few times. Hopefully any confrontation between the major powers, meaning the U.S., Russia, the U.K., or China, will be conventional in nature. Perhaps an agreement that no nukes would be used unless borders are invaded.
Reply

England
06-04-2007, 10:29 PM
It's not going to happen :thumbs_up
Reply

Keltoi
06-04-2007, 10:31 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by England
It's not going to happen :thumbs_up
I don't believe this incident will trigger conflict either, but theoretically it is a frightening scenario.
Reply

جوري
06-04-2007, 10:32 PM
WWIII will happen, and there will be a great loss of lives, it is just a matter of where and when... it is the nature of MANkind-- man can't go against the forces that drive him.... especially when such forces are so primal!
Reply

England
06-04-2007, 10:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
WWIII will happen, and there will be a great loss of lives, it is just a matter of where and when... it is the nature of MANkind-- man can't go against the forces that drive him.... especially when such forces are so primal!
You're so sexist! :X What about Margaret Thatcher? She took Britain to war, I'm sure you're aware of the Falklands war?

Still :thumbs_up Margaret Thatcher :thumbs_up
Reply

جوري
06-04-2007, 10:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by England
You're so sexist! :X What about Margaret Thatcher? She took Britain to war, I'm sure you're aware of the Falklands war?

Still :thumbs_up Margaret Thatcher :thumbs_up
lol.. yes I am aware of your thatcher and her "trickle down economy"...well.. we know who wore the pants in that family? ;D
Reply

Sami Zaatari
06-04-2007, 10:52 PM
putin goes on the attack again:

By JIM HEINTZ, Associated Press Write
2 hours, 53 minutes ago



MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin called himself the world's only "absolute and pure democrat" in an interview published Monday, and launched scathing attacks on the U.S. and Europe ahead of this week's Group of Eight summit.

At the same time, the 54-year-old Putin hinted that he may not be ready to leave the public stage after all when his second term expires next year. "I am far from pension age and it would be absurd just to sit at home doing nothing," he told a group of reporters invited to dinner over the weekend.

Despite Russia's agreement last month to tone down the rhetoric, Putin's statements exposed vast gaps between Russia and the West ahead of this week's Group of Eight summit. He called Britain's decision to demand the extradition of the man suspected of killing former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko with a radioactive poison an act of "stupidity."

The interview touched on much that the rest of the world finds disturbing about Putin's Russia: the backsliding on democracy, the increasing assertion of military power, the general perception of a leader who feels immune to international criticism.

To the many Westerners who say he has rolled back Russia's democratic reforms, Putin responded with the startling assertion that he is the world's one true champion of democracy.

"I am an absolute and pure democrat," Putin said. "But you know what the misfortune is? Not even a misfortune but a real tragedy? It's that I am alone, there simply aren't others like this in the world."

The transcript noted that Putin laughed when making that comment, suggesting he was joking. A few moments later he added: "After the death of Mahatma Gandhi, there's nobody to talk to."

Sandwiched between his acid criticisms and ironic assertions was a brief but brutal criticism of the West.

"We look at what has been created in North America — horror: torture, homelessness, Guantanamo, detention without courts or investigation," he said.

"You see what's going on in Europe: harsh treatment of demonstrators, the use of rubber bullets, tear gas in one capital, the killing of demonstrators in the streets in another," he added, in an apparent reference to the death of an ethnic Russian in the Estonian capital during protests over the removal of a Soviet-era war memorial.

Rather than try to soothe nerves before the G-8 summit in Germany, Putin repeated, and even amplified, recent Kremlin criticism of the United States — including his allegation in February that the United States was engaging in a "hyper-use of power," and Russian officials' denunciation of purported Western attempts to destabilize Russia by funding pro-democracy groups.

The Russian president's comments came despite last month's agreement between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to tone down the rhetoric on both sides.

Much of the toughest talk from the Kremlin has focused on U.S. plans to build a missile-defense system in Europe, which Washington insists is aimed at preventing attacks by rogue states such as Iran and North Korea rather than Russia.

Putin renewed the verbal offensive in his weekend interview, in chilling comments that evoked the balance-of-terror language of the Cold War.

"We are being told the anti-missile defense system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you, to say the least?" a clearly irritated Putin said.

"If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response," Putin said. "What kind of steps? We will have to have new targets in Europe."

These could be targeted with "ballistic or cruise missiles or maybe a completely new system."

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, asked aboard Air Force One about Putin's comments on the missile shield, said there has been "some escalation in the rhetoric."

"We think that that is not helpful. We would like to have a constructive dialogue with Russia on this issue. We have had it in the past," Hadley said.

Russia's relations with the West also are troubled by its refusal to turn over Andrei Lugovoi, the man whom Britain says it has enough evidence to charge in last year's fatal poisoning of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko. The case raised fears that Moscow has returned to its Soviet-era practice of killing dissidents abroad.

Russia refuses to turn over Lugovoi, saying its constitution forbids extradition of Russian citizens to face prosecution abroad. Putin called Britain's demand "stupidity."

"If they didn't know (about the constitutional prohibition) it's a low level of competence and thus we have doubts about what they're doing there," Putin said. "And if they knew and did this, it's simply politics.

"This is bad and that is bad — from all sides it's just stupidity," Putin said.

Putin, less than a year away from the end of his second and final four-year term in office, told reporters he believes Russian presidents should serve longer terms. But he did not say whether he believes his current term should be extended.

Over the years, he has consistently rejected suggestions that the constitution be amended to allow him to seek a third consecutive term, and during his annual address to parliament in April said it would be his last as president.

But Putin's ambiguous comments seemed certain to feed speculation that he would seek to stay in power beyond the spring of 2008. At the very least, his suggestion could discourage other G-8 leaders from treating him as a lame duck.

"Four years is a fairly short time," Putin said. "It seems to me that in today's Russia five, six or seven years would be acceptable, but the number of terms still should be limited."

Russia is scheduled to hold presidential elections in March. Putin, who was re-elected in 2004 with more than 71 percent of the vote, has presided over one of the most prosperous periods in Russian history and enjoys sky-high approval ratings.

Putin has not publicly said whom he would prefer to see succeed him — an endorsement that would carry immense influence, since that candidate could instantly expect the support of the Kremlin and its allies.

Some leaders in post-Soviet states have called referendums to approve extension of their terms. But these moves have been widely criticized abroad as naked power-grabs.

While Putin seems increasingly to scorn his Western critics, the move would create an uproar that he might not want to face.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/...wQyde5NiUUewgF


i havent seen relations get this bad so quick!

the road to ww3 is becomming more clear, and two camps are already seen, you have USA and europe togethor, with russia, iran, north korea, venuezla, and china and sudan in the other camp. india will stay neutral, but quetly i think they will enjoy a US europe downfall, as for turkey who knows what theyll do, perhaps they will turn on the US due to help they give to the kurds. and its allllllll gonna explode right in the mid-east when israel or usa attacks iran. :)
Reply

England
06-04-2007, 11:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari
putin goes on the attack again:

By JIM HEINTZ, Associated Press Write
2 hours, 53 minutes ago



MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin called himself the world's only "absolute and pure democrat" in an interview published Monday, and launched scathing attacks on the U.S. and Europe ahead of this week's Group of Eight summit.

At the same time, the 54-year-old Putin hinted that he may not be ready to leave the public stage after all when his second term expires next year. "I am far from pension age and it would be absurd just to sit at home doing nothing," he told a group of reporters invited to dinner over the weekend.

Despite Russia's agreement last month to tone down the rhetoric, Putin's statements exposed vast gaps between Russia and the West ahead of this week's Group of Eight summit. He called Britain's decision to demand the extradition of the man suspected of killing former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko with a radioactive poison an act of "stupidity."

The interview touched on much that the rest of the world finds disturbing about Putin's Russia: the backsliding on democracy, the increasing assertion of military power, the general perception of a leader who feels immune to international criticism.

To the many Westerners who say he has rolled back Russia's democratic reforms, Putin responded with the startling assertion that he is the world's one true champion of democracy.

"I am an absolute and pure democrat," Putin said. "But you know what the misfortune is? Not even a misfortune but a real tragedy? It's that I am alone, there simply aren't others like this in the world."

The transcript noted that Putin laughed when making that comment, suggesting he was joking. A few moments later he added: "After the death of Mahatma Gandhi, there's nobody to talk to."

Sandwiched between his acid criticisms and ironic assertions was a brief but brutal criticism of the West.

"We look at what has been created in North America — horror: torture, homelessness, Guantanamo, detention without courts or investigation," he said.

"You see what's going on in Europe: harsh treatment of demonstrators, the use of rubber bullets, tear gas in one capital, the killing of demonstrators in the streets in another," he added, in an apparent reference to the death of an ethnic Russian in the Estonian capital during protests over the removal of a Soviet-era war memorial.

Rather than try to soothe nerves before the G-8 summit in Germany, Putin repeated, and even amplified, recent Kremlin criticism of the United States — including his allegation in February that the United States was engaging in a "hyper-use of power," and Russian officials' denunciation of purported Western attempts to destabilize Russia by funding pro-democracy groups.

The Russian president's comments came despite last month's agreement between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to tone down the rhetoric on both sides.

Much of the toughest talk from the Kremlin has focused on U.S. plans to build a missile-defense system in Europe, which Washington insists is aimed at preventing attacks by rogue states such as Iran and North Korea rather than Russia.

Putin renewed the verbal offensive in his weekend interview, in chilling comments that evoked the balance-of-terror language of the Cold War.

"We are being told the anti-missile defense system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you, to say the least?" a clearly irritated Putin said.

"If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response," Putin said. "What kind of steps? We will have to have new targets in Europe."

These could be targeted with "ballistic or cruise missiles or maybe a completely new system."

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, asked aboard Air Force One about Putin's comments on the missile shield, said there has been "some escalation in the rhetoric."

"We think that that is not helpful. We would like to have a constructive dialogue with Russia on this issue. We have had it in the past," Hadley said.

Russia's relations with the West also are troubled by its refusal to turn over Andrei Lugovoi, the man whom Britain says it has enough evidence to charge in last year's fatal poisoning of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko. The case raised fears that Moscow has returned to its Soviet-era practice of killing dissidents abroad.

Russia refuses to turn over Lugovoi, saying its constitution forbids extradition of Russian citizens to face prosecution abroad. Putin called Britain's demand "stupidity."

"If they didn't know (about the constitutional prohibition) it's a low level of competence and thus we have doubts about what they're doing there," Putin said. "And if they knew and did this, it's simply politics.

"This is bad and that is bad — from all sides it's just stupidity," Putin said.

Putin, less than a year away from the end of his second and final four-year term in office, told reporters he believes Russian presidents should serve longer terms. But he did not say whether he believes his current term should be extended.

Over the years, he has consistently rejected suggestions that the constitution be amended to allow him to seek a third consecutive term, and during his annual address to parliament in April said it would be his last as president.

But Putin's ambiguous comments seemed certain to feed speculation that he would seek to stay in power beyond the spring of 2008. At the very least, his suggestion could discourage other G-8 leaders from treating him as a lame duck.

"Four years is a fairly short time," Putin said. "It seems to me that in today's Russia five, six or seven years would be acceptable, but the number of terms still should be limited."

Russia is scheduled to hold presidential elections in March. Putin, who was re-elected in 2004 with more than 71 percent of the vote, has presided over one of the most prosperous periods in Russian history and enjoys sky-high approval ratings.

Putin has not publicly said whom he would prefer to see succeed him — an endorsement that would carry immense influence, since that candidate could instantly expect the support of the Kremlin and its allies.

Some leaders in post-Soviet states have called referendums to approve extension of their terms. But these moves have been widely criticized abroad as naked power-grabs.

While Putin seems increasingly to scorn his Western critics, the move would create an uproar that he might not want to face.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070604/...wQyde5NiUUewgF


i havent seen relations get this bad so quick!

the road to ww3 is becomming more clear, and two camps are already seen, you have USA and europe togethor, with russia, iran, north korea, venuezla, and china and sudan in the other camp. india will stay neutral, but quetly i think they will enjoy a US europe downfall, as for turkey who knows what theyll do, perhaps they will turn on the US due to help they give to the kurds. and its allllllll gonna explode right in the mid-east when israel or usa attacks iran. :)
Ill comment more on this tomorrow but CHINA HATES RUSSIA!
Reply

Zman
06-04-2007, 11:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Back during the worse days of the cold war it was pretty much accepted that the USA would be targeting Russian cities and the Russians would be targeting USA cities, it was also accepted that the shortest route would be over the North pole. The old missile silos that the US had in our Northern States had any point in Russia within 15 minutes range. The number of nukes we had is unbelievable. If I recall correctly the released number we had aimed just at Moscow was in the thousands. I think we admitted to having over 20,000 armed missiles ready to fire at the push of a button. The actual number was probably much higher.

Russia was also equal capable of destroying the US No Hydrogen bombs had ever been detonated in war. It is unimaginable as to what an Eniwetok category nuke would do if used in ware fare. It is estimated that it would only take 6 to destroy every man made building in the US if they were spaced to detonated evenly across the continent. Russia has a larger surface are so it would take about 15 to have the same effect. But, with and estimates 20,000 aimed at each country it is inconceivable that either country would be able to wage war for over 15 minutes and both continents would be left as nuclear waste land for a thousand years or more.

It is sad to see that we are returning to that time.
:sl:

Both sides had enough nukes to destroy the entire world, several times over...
Reply

Woodrow
06-04-2007, 11:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Sami Zaatari

i havent seen relations get this bad so quick!

the road to ww3 is becomming more clear, and two camps are already seen, you have USA and europe togethor, with russia, iran, north korea, venuezla, and china and sudan in the other camp. india will stay neutral, but quetly i think they will enjoy a US europe downfall, as for turkey who knows what theyll do, perhaps they will turn on the US due to help they give to the kurds. and its allllllll gonna explode right in the mid-east when israel or usa attacks iran. :)
That sounds right however I doubt if Venezuela will side much with Russia except for mouth service. One of the largest US oil companies (Citgo) is owned by Venezuela and is one of the major sources of income for Venezuela. In spite of what Chavez says publicly, Venezuela is doing it's best to gain a major share of US oil business.

I see China as being more apt to be flexible and they probably have more hopes of Russia and USA destroying each other. But, at the same time China has a very large number of it's companies located in the US and China has an huge amount of money invested in factories here and I do not think they would like to see Russian bombs destroy them.

An attack on the USA will be an attack on many Chinese businesses
Reply

Keltoi
06-04-2007, 11:40 PM
As the global economy becomes even more interconnected, one would think the chances of large scale war would diminish. However, Russia isn't seeing the benefits of the global economy like the U.S., China, U.K, and others are. Instead of looking to their own policies for the problem, they take a page right out of the tin-pot dictator playbook and blame others for their problems.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 67
    Last Post: 03-10-2013, 10:14 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-24-2007, 05:37 AM
  3. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-06-2006, 12:20 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-05-2006, 09:05 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-04-2006, 05:56 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!