Russia to aim Missiles at Europe

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.

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.
 
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)
 
: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:
 
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
 
: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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
You looked into their secret weapon reserves or are you just really scared? Let's hope diplomacy works!..
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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
 
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
 
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/ap_on_re_eu/russia_putin;_ylt=AmEk82FeF.Y0pawQyde5NiUUewgF


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. :)
 
Last edited:
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/ap_on_re_eu/russia_putin;_ylt=AmEk82FeF.Y0pawQyde5NiUUewgF


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!
 
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...
 
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
 
Last edited:

Similar Threads

Back
Top